# Another school shooting - 18 kids; 8 adults dead in Conn



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/police-respond-to-shooting-at-connecticut-elementary-school/


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

We must pass a law to allow children to have guns at school!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

There was a discussion here many *months ago* about how there would be a rash of *high profile shootings* before the UN Arms Treaty that was "delayed" came up for discussion again.

It seems to be happening right on schedule


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Interesting on the fact that Obama has been notified of the shooting;

no doubt because of the admonition of his former chief-of-staff's:

"You never want a serious tragedy to go to waste!"

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow[/ame]


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Absolutely horrifying! 

Yesterday at a school in China, there were 22 children slashed with a knife.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Well I guess it is time for a assault weapon ban. It is OK if 4 or 5 people get killed but that number is not acceptable. You should increase the gun free zones to at least 1 mile so that you cant shoot into a school zone at all. and you should station a swat team at each school to make sure no body even thinks of bring a gun near the school. Have I left out anything to protect the children? After all it is not the shooters fault that those kids got in the way.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I don't get why there are so many of these kinds of shootings.. I mean, I just don't understand the mind set, especially when it's kids..... I think I can understand some of the work place type shootings, but the ones that are against kids and unknown people I don't... 

Hopefully this guy didn't legally own the guns. If this keeps up, no one will be able to own any... 

I sure feel for those kids and families..


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

Heartbreaking! Not much else to say. I can't seem to get the tears to quit rolling. Who cares about the political stuff right now. We need to pray for those children, staff, and their families.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't get why there are *so many* of these kinds of shootings


There aren't.
They just get the headlines.

There were probably more people murdered in Chicago in the past week or so, but it doesn't make *emotional *headlines that will have people calling for more* gun bans.*

edited to add:
By August in Chicago alone, there had been *351 shooting deaths.*
*http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57499523/mexican-drug-cartels-fight-turf-battles-in-chicago/*

But that doesn't make big headlines, or get people talking about "reasonable gun control"


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

I get so sick of the outcry when a gun is used in some crime. According to bureau of justice statistics knives are used to about the same degree as guns, except in robberies where guns are used substantially more.http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43

Yet they will use these types of crimes as reason to attempt to take away guns.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was a discussion here many *months ago* about how there would be a rash of *high profile shootings* before the UN Arms Treaty that was "delayed" came up for discussion again.
> 
> It seems to be happening right on schedule


I dont mean to be crass and Im not unfeeling or unsympathetic to the victims, but Im really starting to wonder if thats whats going on. 

I read something to the effect that if O got re-elected an assualt style/semi- auto rifle ban was going to be his next major effort.


----------



## TNnative (May 23, 2004)

Pearl B said:


> I dont mean to be crass and Im not unfeeling or unsympathetic to the victims, but Im really starting to wonder if thats whats going on.
> 
> I read something to the effect that if O got re-elected an assualt style/semi- auto rifle ban was going to be his next major effort.


I must admit, that crossed my mind also.

My prayers and thoughts for the victims and the families today. I cannot begin to fathom what the parents are going through right now, as they wait for news.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Prozac and/or other SSRI's are often involved. Doctor's need to be held responsible for over-prescribing these dangerous drugs to children and young adults.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> I don't get why there are so many of these kinds of shootings.. I mean, I just don't understand the mind set, especially when it's kids..... I think I can understand some of the work place type shootings, but the ones that are against kids and unknown people I don't... .


Because the heart of man is desperately wicked.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

grandma12703 said:


> Heartbreaking! Not much else to say. I can't seem to get the tears to quit rolling. Who cares about the political stuff right now. We need to pray for those children, staff, and their families.


* * * * * * * * * *
done for the victims; they are beyond caring at this point.

Which makes those of us who value the freedoms that are now

threatened, all the more vigilant to make sure incidents like this,

are NOT used by politicians to their advantage. . . 

i.e. to take everyone's guns away for the 'good' of society.

The suspect was 24 years of age and one of the adult victims,

was his own mother who worked at the school. So now we know why

he was there. . . .the rest is just collateral damage and defies explanation.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I don't get why there are so many of these kinds of shootings.. I mean, I just don't understand the mind set, especially when it's kids..... I think I can understand some of the work place type shootings, but the ones that are against kids and unknown people I don't...
> 
> Hopefully this guy didn't legally own the guns. If this keeps up, no one will be able to own any...
> 
> I sure feel for those kids and families..


That part is easy to understand.
Kids are not taught right from wrong nowdays because their parents don't have the time, do not care, or do not know right from wrong themselves.
Teachers are not allowed to discipline kids nowdays.
What do people expect?


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> I don't get why there are so many of these kinds of shootings.. I mean, I just don't understand the mind set, especially when it's kids..... I think I can understand some of the work place type shootings, but the ones that are against kids and unknown people I don't...
> 
> Hopefully this guy didn't legally own the guns. If this keeps up, no one will be able to own any...
> 
> I sure feel for those kids and families..


* * * * * * *
1 Peter 5:8


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

copperkid3 said:


> * * * * * * * * * *
> done for the victims; they are beyond caring at this point.
> 
> Which makes those of us who value the freedoms that are now
> ...


 
18 children dead, but others still live and will relive this event in their minds for a long time to come. The parents will be left to pick up the pieces of their broken lives. I don't want to see this turn into a political battle. I know it will, but IMO that is almost as sickening as this tragedy. I pray for the kids and the families that remain with us. I KNOW what this will do to them, and possibly for years to come, if not the rest of their lives.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

pancho said:


> That part is easy to understand.
> Kids are not taught right from wrong nowdays because their parents don't have the time, do not care, or do not know right from wrong themselves.
> Teachers are not allowed to discipline kids nowdays.
> What do people expect?


It is a LOT more than that. If it were only so simple. There is something seriously wrong inside a person's head when they can go into a school and start shooting at innocent young children. Not taught the difference between right and wrong covers stealing, maybe. Total lack of empathy for another human being goes waaaay deeper than that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The cops report finding a Koran in Lanza's apt.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

And now here comes the politician-in-chief, giving his take on the tragedy.


"We are going to have to take actions to see that this never happens again!"


Uhmmmm . . . what "actions" do you think he was referring to? 


He also stated that we need to take actions regardless of politics. . . . 


and 'exactly' how does he plan on doing this without involving politics?!!!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Something isn't square.
Mom's in CT, Dad's in NJ.

Adam Lanza, 20 dead
Ryan Lanza, 24 in custody.

Guns registered to the mother......


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Hollowdweller said:


> We must pass a law to allow children to have guns at school!


When I went to North Hollywood High school in Los Angeles, we had an indoor shooting range. We had guns and somehow, someway, nobody ever got shot!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Deleted because it was the wrong person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "We are going to *have to take actions* to see that this never happens again!"


Create a problem, then create a "solution"
All according to the plan



> He also stated that we need to take actions *regardless of politics*. . . .
> and 'exactly' how does he plan on doing this without involving politics?!!!


That's his preemptive *rhetorical *strike so when someone RESISTS passing new gun/ammo/magazine BANS, they will be accused of "just using politics, and not caring about *THE CHILDREN*"


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Something isn't square.
> Mom's in CT, Dad's in NJ.
> 
> Adam Lanza, 20 dead
> ...


I just read that he had killed his father in CT.
and one of the teachers shot and killed was his mother. Wow what a nutcase he was.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> *Something isn't square.*
> *Mom's in CT, Dad's in NJ.*
> 
> Adam Lanza, 20 dead
> ...


It's not that far to drive, only 3 to 4 hours depending on the locations of the two towns. He probably killed his dad in NJ first, maybe last night or in the early hours of the morning, then immediately drove back to CT to his mother's school and killed her and those kids. 

.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

If the guns were not his this is second in a row taken guns used.

How about 100% federal payment for anyone who wants to buy a gun safe????


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

naturelover said:


> It's not that far to drive, only 3 to 4 hours depending on the locations of the two towns. He probably killed his dad in NJ first, maybe last night or in the early hours of the morning, then immediately drove back to CT to his mother's school and killed her and those kids.
> 
> .


Ok, that's closer than I realized.....

There's something deeper going on here (not conspiracy theory).
Divorced parents.
Rage and violence against them both.
Rage and violence towards innocent children whom his mother spent 40+ hours a week with.

Something is deeply wrong here. I hope we find out truth.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

How about we admit that there is some seriously mentally broken people and figure out how to remove them from the general population. Sometimes I feel like we are living among barbarians just waiting to cut loose and kill the weak.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Ambereyes said:


> How about we admit that there is some seriously mentally broken people and figure out how to remove them from the general population. Sometimes I feel like we are living among barbarians just waiting to cut loose and kill the weak.


I admit, yes, there are some very mentally broken folks who are ticking time bombs.
I admit that there are also drugs given to those who push them over the edge.
I admit that there is pure evil in this world, and he will work through whomever is available.
I admit.....this is so horrifying, and I can't 'do' anything to take away the pain those people are feeling right now, and I admit....I hate that.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I admit, yes, there are some very mentally broken folks who are ticking time bombs.
> I admit that there are also drugs given to those who push them over the edge.
> I admit that there is pure evil in this world, and he will work through whomever is available.
> I admit.....this is so horrifying, and I can't 'do' anything to take away the pain those people are feeling right now, and I admit....I hate that.


It does leave a feeling of helplessness....

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> How about we admit that there is some seriously mentally broken people and figure out how to remove them from the general population. Sometimes I feel like we are living among barbarians just waiting to cut loose and kill the weak.


We used to have those people locked up but the liberals made it impossible to lock any body up until they committed a crime so thise have committed a crime so can be locked up now for a short time.Then they will be given medication to calm them down and let loose again. A persion with that kind of mental illness does not think anything about killing to get what they want. I grew up at a mential hospitial during the 50's and I have seen a few of them kill for no other reason than they wanted to do something like open a gate.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Create a problem, then create a "solution"
> All according to the plan
> 
> 
> ...


You are mistaken you create a solution then create a problem to make what you really want to happen.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Old Vet said:


> We used to have those people locked up but the liberals made it impossible to lock any body up until they committed a crime so thise have committed a crime so can be locked up now for a short time.Then they will be given medication to calm them down and let loose again. A persion with that kind of mental illness does not think anything about killing to get what they want. I grew up at a mential hospitial during the 50's and I have seen a few of them kill for no other reason than they wanted to do something like open a gate.


I thought it was Reagan who closed down a large number of the mental hospitals.

BTW, it wasn't so many years ago that people could get someone committed just on their say-so, usually wealthy abusive men to keep their wives from leaving them. And most mentally ill people ARE NOT violent.

The kids from my neighborhood elementary school got out about a half hour ago. Sure hope none of them ever experience anything like this.


----------



## farmmom (Jan 4, 2009)

Yahoo is reporting 20 children dead. 1 is too many. Heartbroken for these families.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Regarding mental institutions: Many years ago, I worked with a woman who, when she was in nursing school (by now, probably 40 years ago) did a rotation in a state mental institution for women found not guilty by reason of insanity. It was really obvious why most of them were there, but there was one woman who seemed totally normal. She asked someone what this woman was doing there, and was told, "She killed her parents. She's the most dangerous inmate we've ever had here."

So, you never know sometimes.

I also temped at a pharmacy whose main clientele was the chronically mentally ill. They were some of the least dangerous people I have ever encountered (and yes, it was really obvious that most of them had something very seriously wrong with them) and it also left me with the belief that schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder are the worst things that can happen to a person and their family.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

thesedays said:


> I thought it was Reagan who closed down a large number of the mental hospitals.


By the middle of the 1970s, there was a consensus among interested groups that reform of the Mental Health Care System was n ecessary. Lobbying on the part of special interest groups and a commitment on the part of *President Jimmy Carter led to passage of the Mental Health Systems Act.*


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I admit, yes, there are some very mentally broken folks who are ticking time bombs.
> I admit that there are also drugs given to those who push them over the edge.
> I admit that there is pure evil in this world, and he will work through whomever is available.
> I admit.....this is so horrifying, and I can't 'do' anything to take away the pain those people are feeling right now, and I admit....I hate that.


Add to that video games that teach killing is just a game..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

From Drudge










Autistic and personality disorder
Odd and displaying obsessive-compulsive characteristics


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Add to that video games that teach killing is just a game..


Yes the moral decay of our society over the last 50 years is a huge contributing factor.



MoonRiver said:


> From Drudge
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Odd and OCD describes A LOT of folks, me included!


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Ok, that's closer than I realized.....
> 
> There's something deeper going on here (not conspiracy theory).
> Divorced parents.
> ...


Laura, my brother was tormented by my father,as was I, but he couldn't take it. His mind broke, he was going thru puberty , maybe that also affect things. He would hear voices, from the radio, the trees,the sky. Those voices told him to do horrible things, when he was in one of his rages,his eyes would change,they looked black, your really could see fear/anger all kinds of torment in his eyes.This started in the late 70's, people cold just lock someone up,but that changed. We had to talk him into getting help,usally he wanted it. I suspect some of my brothers anger came from everyone ignoreing that my father was abusive ,even my mom,played the pretend game. I'm normal,but belive me, i'll never understand how my Mom let my father treat us the way he did. Some,can't just let what they had to live with just go. I talked with my Brother one time when he was having a bad time and he was trying to connect with God. He talked about the "voices", I told him, that no matter what the voices told him to do, God would never tell him to do anything that would hurt someone. I do think he heard me. People need to quit ignoreing abuse, it does so much harm.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was a discussion here many *months ago* about how there would be a rash of *high profile shootings* before the UN Arms Treaty that was "delayed" came up for discussion again.
> 
> It seems to be happening right on schedule


It's a very sad day.
What kind of monster would use children for political gain?
I guess we know what kind don't we?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> I don't get why there are so many of these kinds of shootings.. I mean, I just don't understand the mind set, especially when it's kids..... I think I can understand some of the work place type shootings, but the ones that are against kids and unknown people I don't...
> ..


You cannot legislate morality.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The Shooter has been identified as ADAM LANZA NOT Ryan Lanza.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> It's a very sad day.
> What kind of monster would use children for political gain?
> I guess we know what kind don't we?


Hmmm, good question, Cornhusker.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

What I want to know is what kind of people can use a tragedy like this as an excuse to get on their soapboxes to rant and speculate about politics? :stars:

Talk about OCD. 

.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

naturelover said:


> What I want to know is what kind of people can use a tragedy like this as an excuse to get on their soapboxes to rant and speculate about politics? :stars:
> 
> Talk about OCD.
> 
> .


So far, Obama, Bloomberg, and Holder, to name a few.

ETA: Menino.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I cannot think of the last time a tragedy has made me cry...perhaps 9/11? The horror of this against the innocent is too much to bear. I am looking at my DD, age 7, and thinking of a classroom full of kids her age, anticipating Santa, waiting for recess, peanut butter and jelly...and gone.

Hug your kids tightly.

And this is NOT the time to spout anything about gun control, shame on BOTH sides for having such audacity.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> So far, Obama, Bloomberg, and Holder, to name a few.
> 
> ETA: Menino.


Yep
Obama jumped in there pretty quick with some little tears and veiled threats of gun control.
What a tool
Like Emanuel said, they won't let a tragedy go to waste
Obama couldn't even wait until the yellow tape was down before he pounced.
Disgusting


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I have audacity, too.....having raised my own kids and with a toddler still in the house.

The pattern is pretty consistent. The perpetrators end up dead so that they cannot say who influenced them to such an atrocity, or why.

This is no time to let emotions sway us to madness.

Wait and see what the UN troops do to ALL of America if the innocent millions are disarmed for the sake of the dozen Manchurian type candidates.

In a time when there ARE no answers, listening to the syrupy voices of ambitious politicians trying to push the wrong answers is not diligence.

Millions upon billions of parents have had to hold their dead child in their own broken-hearted, broken-spirited arms, myself included, for that one last time.

How dare any use that as an excuse to victimize a nation.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

FR, I meant no harm, just hoping that we, as a nation, could give it a rest for at least a day. Within 20 minutes of the story, an MSNBC reporter was joyfully proclaiming that this could FINALLY be the incident that turns the tide for gun control.

Tomorrow or the next day, I will spout off some of my nutso conspiracy theories about all of this. Believe me, I do have a lot of thoughts as to why we have had so many mass shootings in the past year and it sounds like you have thought the same things as I do.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Understood, Becca.

I will go down as the last voice of reason, if need be.

But, as I said, I have been the victim of a tragic death, so I don't mind taking the heat.

There are no answers. There simply aren't.

We grieve, and we go on. That's the way it's always been done.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> The Shooter has b een identified as ADAM LANZA NOT Ryan Lanza.


* * * * * * * * * *
Apparently. . . .

He had his older brother's I.D. when the body was checked and the

authorities made the mistake as to who it was. When they contacted

Ryan after the shooting, he told them, that his brother had had mental 

problems for a number of years. Another correction, his mother wasn't

shot at the school, but rather at her home which he (the shooter) shared

with her. He killed her first, then drove her vehicle to the school and started

shooting administrators and children.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> We used to have those people locked up but the liberals made it impossible to lock any body up until they committed a crime


That sounds like a very good idea to me.
How else do you think we should lock people up?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> Prozac and/or other SSRI's are often involved. Doctor's need to be held responsible for over-prescribing these dangerous drugs to children and young adults.


Moon River (and whoever else cares) today in north Seattle I saw a handmade posterboard sign hung on an overpass that said "Psych Drugs Kill Kids". I have also seen a few buildings that were plastered with graffiti saying similar things--ADD is not a disease, etc. In other words I've noticed an underground swell of rejecting ADD/ADHD diagnosis, stigma etc.

I have a pharmicist friend who has been in the been for years, and it breaks her heart how many kids are medicated--she feels the "disease" was manufactured to sell product.

I have a nephew who has been raised medicated by a BPD narcisist mother and a three time convicted mruder/manslaughter father(occasionally...). That kid has a cold heart. I'm surprised he hasn't kill
ed his mom with a baseball bat--and he has threatened several times, even his grandmother for tellign him to pick up his underwear. 

In 1990 I worked in daycare. It was a good daycare, upper class families. There were several kids, who had not bonded with their parents (for one thing) who had that cold look in their eye. On repeatedly drew pictures of killing his parents with a knife(5 freakin years old!!) and threatened other children. I got to be the one to wrangle him because he freaked everyone else out. 

My point is, I saw MANY children with that cold eye--and I was scared for when they would grow up. I did my best to put something good into their lives. But it scared me *spitless*.

hear what I'm sayin?

Years of medication, putting chemicals into a growing human being with a deveoping brain, does things. These drugs were never "tested" long term. I think it's a disaster beginning to happen.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

As for the gun aspect in this tragedy, supposedly the guns belonged to the kids mother and she legally owned them. Sounds like short of outlawing guns, no control would have stopped this, other than mom taking control and having them locked up.. .


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Any 2nd Amendment conversation, pro or con, at this point is far too soon. 

We need to be allowed to think and process this tragedy. And, even then, IMHO the conversation shouldn't be just about guns. It also should be about mental health issues and what are we are doing or not doing to identify and/or help those with such issues. To do otherwise is to do a grave disservice to the mentally unstable who very much need our help.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I have a sister who needs medication daily to live her life.
Without medication she has a very hard time.
At one time it was only her that suffered when she didn't have medication.
A few years ago her husband decided he needed drugs more than she needed medication.
He is in the ground now. My sister was in jail for a while.
Now she can live her life, I was going to say she could live an ordinary life but that isn't the truth. She still needs medication but there isn't anyone that argues about that now.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

We should talk about the responsibility that goes with owning firearms as well. Like, not letting your mentally ill child have access. What do you want to bet she bought them for him?


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

and how about they sell guns safes without that stupid plastic backing you can slice through with a boxcutter. That has to be the most assinine thing I've ever seen.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> I have a sister who needs medication daily to live her life.


I don't think anyone is saying that some people don't need medication. The problem is that SSRI's are over-prescribed and too often to children. When the kid decides to stop taking the drug or the dosage is wrong, very bad things can happen.

I have a very dear friend that has been on prozac for years. It is a life saver for her, but she can be a thrill seeker at times when her dosage isn't right. These drugs are a tightrope act and too many people fall off.

Just look at Columbine, VA Tech, Colorado, and now Connecticut. I believe in all cases there were known mental problems and some type of prescribed drugs.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

MoonRiver said:


> So far, Obama, Bloomberg, and Holder, to name a few.
> 
> ETA: Menino.


* * * * * * * * * * * *
The liberals who are here reading your comments will either not 

believe you or more likely are too lazy to check it out on their own; having

grown up with the expectation that the gooberment will tell them everything

that they will need to know. Unfortunately, we are already seeing firsthand, that

the message will be to turn in your guns/ammo to keep us ALL safe!

http://bostinno.com/2012/12/14/menino-calls-for-gun-control-connecticut-shooting/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mayor-bloomberg-to-obama-calling-for-meaningful-action-is-not-enough/

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/12/1...gs-we-must-ask-ourselves-some-hard-questions/


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I saw a bit ago in the middle of the NBC extended news broadcast about this that MSNBC is planning on having a special sit down Sunday to discuss these kinds of mass killings and gun control......


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

The truth is that banning guns won't stop innocent people from being murdered......and we all know it.

One life lost is just as tragic as 20 lives lost.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What I want to know is what kind of people can use a tragedy like this as an excuse to get on their soapboxes to rant and *speculate about politics*?


There's no "speculation" involved.
They take advantage of every opportunity to make guns out to be the CAUSE of the problems


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Like, *not letting* your mentally ill child have access


There's no evidence she "let" him do anything at all


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

FeralFemale said:


> Any 2nd Amendment conversation, pro or con, at this point is far too soon.
> 
> We need to be allowed to think and process this tragedy. And, even then, IMHO the conversation shouldn't be just about guns. It also should be about mental health issues and what are we are doing or not doing to identify and/or help those with such issues. To do otherwise is to do a grave disservice to the mentally unstable who very much need our help.


 I would like to agree with you here, but I simply can't (at least entirely).
Maybe I'm just too realistic to let tragedies like this effect me too much, though it does tug at the heart strings. Life is just a process, and I accept that my loved ones or myself could go at any time, anywhere, by anything, and I have therefore braced myself for it. The only things I process when I see these kinds of things happen is. WOW, very sad, god be with those directly involved, and those usual things.
However, if one doesn't start preparing for the onslaught of anti-gun activists immediately after these events, then one is just allowing the anti-gunners several yards head start in a race. We simply can't allow the anti-gunners any more leverage then they currently have. Heck they already get a head start after these types of tragedies. 
I don't mean to offend anyone, and I certainly don't want to seem insensitive. My heart does go out to anyone going through situations like this.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

grandma12703 said:


> Heartbreaking! Not much else to say. I can't seem to get the tears to quit rolling. Who cares about the political stuff right now. We need to pray for those children, staff, and their families.


Also, pray for the victums of future mass shootings that will take place if we leave everything as it is right now. 



Ambereyes said:


> Sometimes I feel like we are living among barbarians just waiting to cut loose and kill the weak.


So right you are! It's only gonna get worse! 




Cornhusker said:


> Yep
> Obama jumped in there pretty quick with some little tears and veiled threats of gun control.
> What a tool
> Like Emanuel said, they won't let a tragedy go to waste
> ...


Had he waited, he would have been in trouble for taking too long to reply about the situation. 



Txsteader said:


> The truth is that banning guns won't stop innocent people from being murdered......and we all know it.
> 
> One life lost is just as tragic as 20 lives lost.


No it wont stop innocent people from being murdered, but if we control the number of ammo a assult weapon will hold, then maybe a few more will escape to live another day. 

Yes I know, someone is going to say "a shotgun loaded with buckshots is gonna kill more people". Well if thats the case, then lets limit the number of buckshots that can be loaded in a shotgun shell! 

No it wont stop the crime. Man has been doing this ever since he found out he could pick up a stick and throw it at his enemy. However, we could do something to cut down on the number of mass casualties whenever this happens. Let's outlaw military type assult weapons that hold large quantities of ammo. Whether fully or semi automatic there still assult weapons. Or lets make them to where they will only hold no more then 5 shells at a time and cant be quickly reloaded. This would give children and innocent bystanders more time to run for their life, or give someone a chance to take the shooter out while he's fumbling around trying to reload his 5 shooter. 

Only the military or the police should have access to assult weapons. The regular public doesn't need them. If you have them, so will the criminals cause many of them steal them from your homes. 

I believe they said on t.v. today that 85 people have been killed this year due to mass killing. Roughly 1/3 of that number happened today and involved mostly children. 

Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys (assult weapons)?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

jaredI said:


> I would like to agree with you here, but I simply can't (at least entirely).
> Maybe I'm just too realistic to let tragedies like this effect me too much, though it does tug at the heart strings. Life is just a process, and I accept that my loved ones or myself could go at any time, anywhere, by anything, and I have therefore braced myself for it. The only things I process when I see these kinds of things happen is. WOW, very sad, god be with those directly involved, and those usual things.
> However, if one doesn't start preparing for the onslaught of anti-gun activists immediately after these events, then one is just allowing the anti-gunners several yards head start in a race. We simply can't allow the anti-gunners any more leverage then they currently have. Heck they already get a head start after these types of tragedies.
> I don't mean to offend anyone, and I certainly don't want to seem insensitive. My heart does go out to anyone going through situations like this.


 
I can't say that I don't know how you feel or have thought of the same thing myself, today.

I've thought many times during the last pres election process that conservatives are too nice and aren't willing to get down in the dirt with progs. I guess, though, that there are some things I just don't think I am willing get down in the dirt for. Maybe that's why conservative, politcally, are done for?


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I admit, yes, there are some very mentally broken folks who are ticking time bombs.


Do you think they are fixable? Or do you think some people are just not fixable without a miracle from God?
That is something I wonder about. Should some people just be considered so dangerous that we must confine them to protect society? I would like to hope that everyone is fixable, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> By the middle of the 1970s, there was a consensus among interested groups that reform of the Mental Health Care System was n ecessary. Lobbying on the part of special interest groups and a commitment on the part of *President Jimmy Carter led to passage of the Mental Health Systems Act.*


State hospitals used to hang on to people a lot longer than they do today. I suppose getting mental patients back into society is a bigger priority than it used to be, but I also suspect that it costs the state less when patients are discharged earlier. As a matter of dollars & cents, we'll probably see more of this as governments deal with short budgets.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

beccachow said:


> And this is NOT the time to spout anything about gun control, shame on BOTH sides for having such audacity.


I think you have a good point. Neither side on this issue should use this horrible tragedy to politicize their opinion on the topic. It's disrespectful to turn the lives of those lost into a sideshow to lift either side of the agenda.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mekasmom said:


> I think you have a good point. Neither side on this issue should use this horrible tragedy to politicize their opinion on the topic. It's disrespectful to turn the lives of those lost into a sideshow to lift either side of the agenda.


I suppose you are correct, but that's just what we do with tragedies in this country. Look at how 9/11 was politicized.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wyld thang said:


> and how about they sell guns safes without that stupid plastic backing you can slice through with a boxcutter. That has to be the most assinine thing I've ever seen.


I think they figure most thieves will try to get into them from the outside. A determined thief can peel them open but your run of the mill thief won't bother trying. The ones dumb enough to use a cutting torch can be defeated by storing a few pounds of gun powder right inside the door. It defeats them permanently.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Usually, they just take the entire safe to open at their leisure.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

"Oh wait I can't go on a killing spree here there is a 'Gun Free Zone' sign," said no criminal ever. 

Both the mall in Portland and the school were "gun free zones". Didn't stop either shooter from doing what they intended to do. If more people were properly trained and allowed to carry at will I bet there would be a lot less killing sprees.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Wags said:


> If more people were properly trained and allowed to carry at will I bet there would be a lot less killing sprees.


Why?

I think people who go on killing sprees in malls and schools are anticipating they're going to get shot down by somebody else anyway, or else shoot themself. Suicide by cop or suicide by a bystander carrying at will - what's the difference? Other trained people carrying at will isn't going to stop the crazies from going on killing sprees, they don't care who shoots back at them. All they care about is going on a killing spree and taking as many people out as they can before somebody else shoots them or they shoot themself.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No it wont stop innocent people from being murdered, but if we control the number of ammo a assult weapon will hold, then maybe a few more will escape to live another day.


The largest mass murder at a school was committed with bombs, not guns.

More laws *banning *guns or ammo won't change anything other than getting MORE innocent people killed



> Yes I know, someone is going to say "a shotgun loaded with buckshots is gonna kill more people". Well if thats the case, then lets limit the number of buckshots that can be loaded in a shotgun shell!


You answered yourself:



> No *it wont stop the crime*





> Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys (assult weapons)?


*Alcohol *causes more deaths than guns, but I don't see you ranting against that
It's easier to just mimick the anti gun spiel and play on *emotions rather than logic*



> Alcohol causes nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide*, more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence*




*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Other *trained people carrying at will isn't going to stop the crazies* from going on killing sprees,


And yet the POLICE who *respond* are all carrying "assault weapons" because THAT is what is needed to take out a killer.

Just *ONE* ARMED "civilian" could have stopped it much* sooner*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If there were more responsible, armed people on campuses, mass murder would be harder.
> 
> In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter.
> 
> ...


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...rs-people-guns-article-1.211272#ixzz2F6J77we7
​ 
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/people-don-stop-killers-people-guns-article-1.211272


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet the POLICE who *respond* are all carrying "assault weapons" because THAT is what is needed to take out a killer.
> 
> Just *ONE* ARMED "civilian" could have stopped it much* sooner*


Maybe, maybe not. But so what?

And maybe that one armed "civilian" could be a vigilante nutcase looking for an opportunity to execute some other nutcase that's bent on a killing spree.

That's still not going to stop the crazies from going on killing sprees if they have easy access to guns.

In these kinds of instances it's not so much the guns that are the real problem, the problem is the crazies who have the guns. Part of the solution is to not make it so easy for crazies to get their hands on the guns. At the very least if they go on a killing spree with some other weapon they won't be killing a multitude of people in a matter of just a few minutes before somebody else takes them out.

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Maybe, maybe not. But so what?
> 
> And maybe that one armed "civilian" could be a vigilante nutcase looking for an opportunity to execute some other nutcase that's bent on a killing spree.
> 
> ...


You are correct it will not stop them but it reduce the number of victims. If nothing else it will give them time to get out of the way when somebody starts shooting at them.


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

Old Vet said:


> You are correct it will not stop them but it reduce the number of victims. If nothing else it will give them time to get out of the way when somebody starts shooting at them.


You assume it will be too burdensome for someone with such intent to carry multiple magazines or guns to accomplish the same ends. Regulating bullets and magazines isn't an answer, it's a band aid, and a bad one at that. Do you know what the average police response time is in your area? Do you? Have you heard the saying "When _seconds_ count, the police are only 'x' number of _minutes _away?"

And is "getting out of the way" good enough? Sorry, but not for me. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. It's my right and my responsibility to protect myself and my kids, and I'll be ****** if the best plan of action I have is to hope, cower and wait for some one else to come in and save us.

Murderers will always find a mean to their ends; shall we start limiting the amount of matches and gasoline we can purchase for preps? Should we mandate that each person may only have one kitchen knife? What about cars? Do you support the regulation and government control of baseball bats, hammers, screw drivers, rope, book ends or toasters?

If you want to blame something, blame the person and their actions, not their tools. Shootings like this happen in "gun free" zones for a reason; Fort Hood, Va Tech, Aurora Theatre, malls...they don't happen at shooting ranges, gun friendly businesses or other places people may be armed. When Loughner shot Giffords, several people took him down, and at least ONE person in the crowd was armed and ready to stop him.

Imagine the causalties that could have been if those people instead had chosen to do as you suggested and "get out of the way" instead of acting in their DEFENSE.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And maybe that one armed "civilian" could be a *vigilante nutcase* looking for an opportunity to execute some other nutcase that's bent on a killing spree.


LOL

Usually you have* REASONABLE* arguments, but not this time.

*Actual data* has shown repeatedly that the more legally armed people there are, the LESS crimes occur.

That's why the anti gunners get as much mileage as they can out of these incidents by playing up the *emotional *side, and tossing out all the current* buzzwords (*like vigilante nutcase*)* instead of presenting *only the facts* and LOGICALLY looking for* viable* solutions


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

wyld thang said:


> Moon River (and whoever else cares) today in north Seattle I saw a handmade posterboard sign hung on an overpass that said "Psych Drugs Kill Kids". I have also seen a few buildings that were plastered with graffiti saying similar things--ADD is not a disease, etc. In other words I've noticed an underground swell of rejecting ADD/ADHD diagnosis, stigma etc.
> 
> I have a pharmicist friend who has been in the been for years, and it breaks her heart how many kids are medicated--she feels the "disease" was manufactured to sell product.
> 
> ...


YOU are dead on right PLUS when you factor in all of the chemicals, artificial colors and sweeteners in our food? 
People can just laugh if they want, but educate yourself.
What we call food is not.
What we call medicine is not.
What we call love, is not.
For a few generations, what we have called 'good' is evil.

We are reaping what we have sown.





Wags said:


> "Oh wait I can't go on a killing spree here there is a 'Gun Free Zone' sign," said no criminal ever.
> 
> Both the mall in Portland and the school were "gun free zones". Didn't stop either shooter from doing what they intended to do. If more people were properly trained and allowed to carry at will I bet there would be a lot less killing sprees.


If one person in the office would have been armed......
How many lives, would have been saved?
If one person in the office knew this young man was 'not right', and had erred on the side of caution when dealing with him?
How many lives would have been saved?

We will never know now.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> No it wont stop innocent people from being murdered, but if we control the number of ammo a assult weapon will hold, then maybe a few more will escape to live another day.
> 
> Yes I know, someone is going to say "a shotgun loaded with buckshots is gonna kill more people". Well if thats the case, then lets limit the number of buckshots that can be loaded in a shotgun shell!
> 
> ...


Right. Further disarm the population and give the military and police all the power. Brilliant solution. I wonder, have you read history? Better yet, have you watched the news lately about what's going on in Syria?

By your solution, only 5 children would have been slaughtered. Are not those 5 lives just as precious as the rest? _Or is it simply that 5 deaths are less shocking to our emotions?_

The only thing your solution does is make everyone else feel better. It does *nothing* to comfort the families of the unlucky ones who weren't able to 'run away'. 

If murderous people can't use guns, they'll use bombs or poison or jetliners. Evil will find a way. You CANNOT legislate conscience or morality!


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I grew up in an area where guns were as normal as a comb. Can remember the full gun racks in pickups on the school parking lot. Funny thing is I don't remember any gun violence, there was assaults and different crimes. But no massacres like we see now. 

What has happened to people to bring this out? I have my ideas about it. Lack of family, lack of responsibility, and lack of will to admit that maybe there is a problem with someone in your circle.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> *However, we could do something to cut down on the number of mass casualties whenever this happens.* Let's outlaw military type assult weapons that hold large quantities of ammo. Whether fully or semi automatic there still assult weapons. Or lets make them to where they will only hold no more then 5 shells at a time and cant be quickly reloaded. This would give children and innocent bystanders more time to run for their life, or give someone a chance to take the shooter out while he's fumbling around trying to reload his 5 shooter.


There's one other thing that would have effectively cut down on the number of casualties in this incident and all others like it: if someone in the school had been armed.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

My Aunt made a comment last night about the shooting, and I will freely admit that she can be racist but at 98 she has a sharp mind and has lived through some really interesting times. I don't know how true her comment is but she asked why most of the mass shootings were done by white men? I have a list of shootings since Columbine and now I wonder myself


[FONT=Verdana,Arial]April 20, 1999 - Columbine High School in Littleton, CO = Gun free zone
September 15, 1999. - Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX = Gun free zone
July 8, 2003 - Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MI
Red Lake Senior High School = Gun free zone
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA = Gun free zone
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake Cityâs Trolley Square Mall = Gun free zone
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech = Gun free zone
December 5, 2007. department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE = Gun free zone
February 7, 2008. City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. = Gun free zone
February 14, 2008. lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, = Gun free zone
March 29, 2009. Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. = Gun free zone
April 3, 2009. immigration center in Binghamton, New York = Gun free zone
November 5, 2009. Fort Hood army base in Texas. = Gun free zone
August 3, 2010. Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT = Gun free zone
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. = Gun free zone
September 6, 2011. IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV = Gun free zone
October 14, 2011. Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA = Gun free zone
April 2, 2012. Oikos University, Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. = Gun free zone
May 29, 2012. Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA. = Gun free zone
July 20, 2012. Aurora, CO. = Gun free zone
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wisconsin. = Gun free zone
September 27, 2012. Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. = Gun free zone
December 11, 2012. Clackamas Town Center, Oregon = Gun free zone
December 14, 2012. Newtown, CT. = Gun free zone
[/FONT]


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Why?
> 
> I think people who go on killing sprees in malls and schools are anticipating they're going to get shot down by somebody else anyway, or else shoot themself. Suicide by cop or suicide by a bystander carrying at will - what's the difference? Other trained people carrying at will isn't going to stop the crazies from going on killing sprees, they don't care who shoots back at them. All they care about is going on a killing spree and taking as many people out as they can before somebody else shoots them or they shoot themself.
> 
> .


 You may very correct when you say people will still go on killing sprees. However, wouldn't it be much better that they only kill a couple people before someone stops them? Or is it better to just allow them to use all the ammo they brought with them?
Get rid of the gun free zones, arm more people, and the chances of stopping people like this increase dramatically.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I say ban all guns.
Immediately after they ban automobiles, fast food, and politicians.
All three of these kill far more people than guns.
Lets start with the worst killers first.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

As far as these types of events go I don't think more people carrying will help at all. I also don't think tighter gun control will help.

I don't see a gun problem, I see a mental health care problem.

That said, we will, unfortunately never stop them from happening completely. The best I can see happening is that we learn from these things to recognize the danger signs better and learn what is the most effective intervention. That's why I am always disappointed when the perpetrators of these things die and the chance to take them in alive is lost. We need them alive to learn from them imo.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> As far as these types of events go I don't think more people carrying will help at all. I also don't think tighter gun control will help.
> 
> I don't see a gun problem, I see a mental health care problem.


I am surprised to see many of the talking heads on the news also blaming his mental state rather than guns. It has been said that he suffered from some sort of personality disorder. If they knew that, he was no doubt prescribed one or more of the mind altering drugs. In every case of mass shootings I'm aware of, the shooter was on these types of meds. The list of side effects for these drugs, especially in young people, is a laundry list of things that could cause these shootings. Add to that, he was said to be a big video game player. Another thing most of the shooters have in common. So, you take a mentally disturbed person on mind altering drugs who likes video games where reality is blurred with make believe and we wonder why these guys in their teens or early twenties do these terrible things.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

jaredI said:


> You may very correct when you say people will still go on killing sprees. However, wouldn't it be much better that they only kill a couple people before someone stops them? Or is it better to just allow them to use all the ammo they brought with them?
> Get rid of the gun free zones, arm more people, and the chances of stopping people like this increase dramatically.


 
Um, I can say that is no guarantee. IE, I've been in an actual situation...

We were at an ATV camp which was also next to a inactive(at the time) quarry where people went to shoot, they'd bring appliances and tvs to shoot up, and you could see all sorts of amazing monster guns in action(um, anybody who says a gun can't "inspire" an emotional response in a human being is either hugely sheltered, or is flat out lying--there eas an Anthony Bourdain show where he went to visit Ted Nugent. Bourdain is anti-gun, but he is also adventurous and coudn't pass up shooting with Ted. He admitted how addictive and sexy it felt to shoot. I admire his honesty. I digress). In other words this camp was full of people who brought stuff to target shoot with, had CC, etc. The Camp Host was personally armed but per the rules if he were to use it in enforcing order he'd be seriously in trouble, losing his job would be the least of his worries. Again I digress.

Late one night a carload of guys came into the camp spot next door to us. THey got rowdy and drunk and loaded on some sort of drug(we could hear them talkign about it etc) and abotu midnight they started popping off random shots UP into the air. Some people yelled at them to knock it off, and there was more yelling and then more people were shooting off "up" into the air, posturing. At this point(we later learned) the camp host called the sheriff on his satellite phone.

As the guys next to us got drunker and higher they started shooting into the trees around them. We are in our trailer, and I pull my kids onto the floor (they slept through the whole thing ha), and my husband and I get on the floor. He sits opposite the door with his gun pulled, in case(make NO mistake I honor this).

It took an hour and a half for the sheriff to arrive. By that time the shooters had sobered up enough to know game over when their foreheads were red dotted. Half of them had outstanding warrants and were arrested, the other half, coming off being drunk and high, were put on the road, "expelled" from camp(I'm like WTH????). The camp host was the only one that made a statement.

So, just saying there is no guarantee even when "everyone" is armed. I know at least a few friends there, were armed and responsible well trained gun users. Of course there were ******* poser gun users in the mix too, and criminal gun users. I was amazed that the collective response seemed to be, "They are randomly shooting into the trees, we'll let the police shut them down, if they come targeting people THEN I will "do" something". 

Part of this is is how the gun laws are written (at least in Oregon) for how it goes for a gun owner who uses a gun to respond to a situation. The feeling (har) is that you have one shot, you save it for that REALLY nasty situation. Otherwise you let it play out and hope for the best. Nobody confronted the gunmen to control the situation, THe camp host guy--though I know him and he wanted so bad to pull his own and "do" more--knew he was seriously outnumbered and his hands were tied every which way(btw he has since been fired for popping a jerk in the face to stop him from harming people).

It was truly a miracle no one was injured, you can be sure I was praying hard. It really opened my eyes to the thing of how people talk smack about putting down the criminal in action, and when you actually get there in that situation, quite a different thing can happen. And maybe it's even "worse" when "everybody " has a gun because everyone think someone else will step up. Same ol same ol group dynamics when you have someone in the mix causing trouble and bullying, It's tolerated for awhile because humans want to "be nice", then nobody wants to draw fire in "doing something", then finally something HAS TO be done and a FEW brave souls git r done. I have NO ILLUSION guns are a magic bullet that in hindsight "couldashouldawoulda" prevented tragedy. 

Certainly carrying a gun is a deterrent for potential crime, and it does prevent a lot of crime. But assuming if there was a CC person in the mix that that would have prevented the deaths like yesterday? Um, no. You need a person with TRAINING to effectively respond to a situation like that. A CC card is NO substitute for training(and character) to respond and put one's life on the line. Plenty of gun carriers out there (legal or not btw, I know the real story about all that) who slink away when the going gets actually tough. 

And for what it's worth, I've learned enough about human nature that if I was in a room of gun owners, and had to pick some to have my back, I choose the ones who "shut up and carry". The ones who "brandish" their rights and their bling in everyone's face will be useless when it gets real. THAT is my comment on the thing of the gun is an inanimate unblameable etc etc object. 

Brain behind the gun goes both ways. Merely having a gun in the room does not guarantee safer odds(flip side of a gun doesn't "force" a whack/criminal to shoot somebody)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mekasmom said:


> I think you have a good point. Neither side on this issue should use this horrible tragedy to politicize their opinion on the topic. It's disrespectful to turn the lives of those lost into a sideshow to lift either side of the agenda.


I don't see how you can criticize people asking the simple question of whether there's something that might be done to prevent this sort of thing. I would be surprised if that question wasn't being asked. Certainly, a time like this is the time to ask.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys (assult weapons)?


First of all guns are not toys. They are tools. I value some children more than others, well behaved ones can actually be pretty neat to have around. The others can be tolerated to a degree if they are kept at a distance. None of them however deserve to be shot just because they are there. I have to wonder in this case however if those kids would have been killed had the principal and the other adults in the school been properly trained and well armed? :shrug:


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Wyld Thang,

I never said it was a guarantee, I said having more people armed and stop these stupid gun free zones, and it will improve the odds that some lunatic won't kill as many people if he/she decides to go on a killing spree.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEE'S IN LIFE.
except maybe taxes and death.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

I am curious what the security was for the school? I know in my kids schools there was a police officer (rotating) on site, under the DARE program umbrella. There was one in the elementary and 2-3 in middle school/high school. This was in Oregon. I dont' know if it was local district policy or state policy etc.

BTW, part of the objective of the DARE program was to have the police officers be informal "friends"/mentors with the kids. They had great folks in my town's schools, I gotta say.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

jaredI said:


> Wyld Thang,
> 
> I never said it was a guarantee, I said having more people armed and stop these stupid gun free zones, and it will improve the odds that some lunatic won't kill as many people if he/she decides to go on a killing spree.
> THERE ARE NO GUARANTEE'S IN LIFE.
> except maybe taxes and death.


Yeppers, I believe that school was a gun free zone, didnt help. Having the schools staff and faculty properly trained and well armed may have been a better course of action.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

jaredI said:


> Wyld Thang,
> 
> I never said it was a guarantee, I said having more people armed and stop these stupid gun free zones, and it will improve the odds that some lunatic won't kill as many people if he/she decides to go on a killing spree.
> THERE ARE NO GUARANTEE'S IN LIFE.
> except maybe taxes and death.


I'm sorry jared I didn't mean to reply specifically to you, I was replying to the idea that more gun presence would have "done something". I didn't mean my reply to be personally to you. Ok maybe I was replying to your "increase dramatically" 

I'm thinking too that vets, who have been in combat with trained people(ie "everyone" has a gun in hand), will know what I'm saying about human nature and who you choose for your posse.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I believe that school was a gun free zone, didnt help. Having the schools staff and faculty properly trained and well armed may have been a better course of action.


 
I've seen a lot of folks around say we should do like Israel and arm all the teachers. That's an unrealistic solution--the USA has a different mindset than Israel--Israelis are "used" to living under attack and being vigilant and as a culture being responsible with guns-as-tools.

If we make all teachers arm themselves and learn that vigilant mindset while trying to teach, a lot of their heads will literally blow apart(and I mean that affectionately). The better idea is to have trained security professionals in the schools who can do that vigilance--it wouldn't take that much of bond measure to provide the service. Let the teachers teach, they have a hard enough job already. Let the kind souls "facilitate" kindness, and let the professional soldiers protect.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I believe that school was a gun free zone, didnt help. Having the schools staff and faculty properly trained and well armed may have been a better course of action.


While I welcome a discussion about preventing similar incidents, I'm not sure that more guns is the answer.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

PistolPackinMom said:


> You assume it will be too burdensome for someone with such intent to carry multiple magazines or guns to accomplish the same ends. Regulating bullets and magazines isn't an answer, it's a band aid, and a bad one at that. Do you know what the average police response time is in your area? Do you? Have you heard the saying "When _seconds_ count, the police are only 'x' number of _minutes _away?"
> 
> And is "getting out of the way" good enough? Sorry, but not for me. Actually, I'm not sorry at all. It's my right and my responsibility to protect myself and my kids, and I'll be ****** if the best plan of action I have is to hope, cower and wait for some one else to come in and save us.
> 
> ...


You misunderstood my post. I was saying that on the worst case and if you are inexperance with a gun you could at least shot at them and givve people a chance to hide. I would take aim and hit what I an aming at if I was close enough but if I were too far to do nay good by hitting him I would be shooting at him anyway. I know that training is important but everything may not go according to plain so you do your best and hope for the best. I have learned that you will fire at anybody that is firing back other than at innocent bystanders.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Old Vet said:


> You misunderstood my post. I was saying that on the worst case and if you are inexperance with a gun you could at least shot at them and givve people a chance to hide. I would take aim and hit what I an aming at if I was close enough but if I were too far to do nay good by hitting him I would be shooting at him anyway. I know that training is important but everything may not go according to plain so you do your best and hope for the best. I have learned that you will fire at anybody that is firing back other than at innocent bystanders.


I think anyone who realistically suggests that the answer to this problem is to introduce guns into elementary schools is going to be fighting an uphill battle. That's not an idea that legislators will be quick to embrace.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Um, I can say that is no guarantee. IE, I've been in an actual situation...
> 
> We were at an ATV camp which was also next to a inactive(at the time) quarry where people went to shoot, they'd bring appliances and tvs to shoot up, and you could see all sorts of amazing monster guns in action(um, anybody who says a gun can't "inspire" an emotional response in a human being is either hugely sheltered, or is flat out lying--there eas an Anthony Bourdain show where he went to visit Ted Nugent. Bourdain is anti-gun, but he is also adventurous and coudn't pass up shooting with Ted. He admitted how addictive and sexy it felt to shoot. I admire his honesty. I digress). In other words this camp was full of people who brought stuff to target shoot with, had CC, etc. The Camp Host was personally armed but per the rules if he were to use it in enforcing order he'd be seriously in trouble, losing his job would be the least of his worries. Again I digress.
> 
> ...


Any body that knows me knows that if you even look at a alcoholic drink you cant have a gun for at least 8 hours. It is like flying you must get all of the alcohol out of your system before you fire a gun so that you have all of your normal mental facilities to see what you are shooting at. I have been known to disarm some of my neighbors because they were drunk and wanted to shoot something.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

poppy said:


> In every case of mass shootings I'm aware of, the shooter was on these types of meds. The list of side effects for these drugs, especially in young people, is a laundry list of things that could cause these shootings. Add to that, he was said to be a big video game player. Another thing most of the shooters have in common. So, you take a mentally disturbed person on mind altering drugs who likes video games where reality is blurred with make believe and we wonder why these guys in their teens or early twenties do these terrible things.


I wonder if there is anyway to get data to compare the proportion of people on these meds who engage in large scale violent behavior versus the proportion of people not on meds who do so.My experience has been that when people come off "their meds" , they become most dangerous. It would be a good thing to know if such behavior is exaggerated by use of these medications then withdrawal or simply use of them or whether it helps or hurts.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

jaredI said:


> You may very correct when you say people will still go on killing sprees. *However, wouldn't it be much better that they only kill a couple people before someone stops them? Or is it better to just allow them to use all the ammo they brought with them?*
> Get rid of the gun free zones, arm more people, and the chances of stopping people like this increase dramatically.


I think it would be better if people who are mentally ill don't have access to any firearms. I do not think it would be better if they only kill a couple of people before somebody stops them. I think it would be better if they are not able to kill anybody at all.

The very idea that you would think it's okay for _"only a couple of people to be killed"_ as collateral damage and the price paid for allowing mentally ill people the right to have access to firearms is horrifying to me.

Is it okay with you for yourself or some member of your family to be that collateral damage? Are you prepared to pay with your life as the price so that mentally ill people can have a right to own and bear arms?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Why is it okay for irresponsible people to own firearms?

The mother of that young man was the owner of those firearms. She knowingly put her own life and the lives of other people at risk by owning and keeping firearms in her home with a mentally ill son with a history of sociopathy living in the same home. 

That made her an irresponsible gun owner and she paid for it with her life, the life of her sick son and the lives of other people's children.

Why was it okay for her to keep firearms in her home under such circumstances? Never mind telling me that she had a right to do so. What I want to know is why was it okay for her to be irresponsible about her rights?

.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys (assult weapons)?


 
Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys (automobiles)?
Which do we value the most? Our children or our toys ( 4 wheelers)?

Which do we value the most? Our children or our fastfood?


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

MoonRiver said:


> So far, Obama, Bloomberg, and Holder, to name a few.
> 
> ETA: Menino.


Yes, the party of vultures and ghouls is in full cry.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Maybe we should just build prison type systems just for schools, since correcting the problem of killers that target the weakest seems to be to difficult. Sad that we have to lock up the kids because this society has allowed the barbarians freedom.. looks like we are fast heading back to the dark ages.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Why was it okay for her to keep firearms in her home under such circumstances? Never mind telling me that she had a right to do so. What I want to know is why was it okay for her to be irresponsible about her rights?


Actually, there are jurisdictions that require gun owners to restrict access to their firearms, and are held responsible if they don't. If she owned and used a firearm safe then this might have turned-out differently.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, there are jurisdictions that require gun owners to restrict access to their firearms, and are held responsible if they don't. If she owned and used a firearm safe then this might have turned-out differently.


I understand that already. Why aren't ALL jurisdictions like that? Why aren't all gun owners required to own gun safes and trigger locks and to provide evidence that they have gun safes and trigger locks to show that their guns are restricted access?

Furthermore, for those jurisdiction where gun owners are already required to have gun safes and trigger locks, how is anyone to have evidence that those gun owners are being responsible about using the gun safes and trigger locks?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Yes, the party of vultures and ghouls is in full cry.


You have nothing to worry about. The NRA owns your government. Nothing will happen. Nothing will change. This incident is just one more in a long line of killing sprees which has become part of the American culture. In a few days the hew and cry will die down and everyone will forget about it until the next debacle happens and it will be a repeat of the same old same old. And again nothing will happen to make changes for the better.

Carry on.

.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I understand that already. Why aren't ALL jurisdictions like that? Why aren't all gun owners required to own gun safes and trigger locks and to provide evidence that they have gun safes and trigger locks to show that their guns are restricted access?
> 
> Furthermore, for those jurisdiction where gun owners are already required to have gun safes and trigger locks, how is anyone to have evidence that those gun owners are being responsible about using the gun safes and trigger locks?
> 
> .


Some people usr their guns for home protection.
Not a lot of home invaders will wait while you get your gun out of a safe and remove the trigger lock.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Just remember who the NRA is...... a bunch of regular, law abiding, folks. Not some kind of uncaring monster.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Yeah we have at least a 30 minute wait for emergency services.. Sheriff has told some that we need to keep a gun and learn how to use it, they are stretched way to thin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I've been in an actual situation...


That situation in NO WAY compares to a *true* "active shooter" scenario.
They were "disturbing the peace"



> I was replying to the idea that *more gun presence* would have "done something".


Isn't that EXACTLY what they *wanted* when they called the POLICE?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The very idea that you would think it's okay for _"only a couple of people to be killed"_ as collateral damage and the price paid for* allowing* mentally ill people the right to have access to firearms is horrifying to me.


They aren't "allowed" now
Neither is killing people "allowed"



> What I want to know is why was it okay for her to be* irresponsible* about her rights?


Where's your evidence to show she was?
For all we* know*, she kept them secured until he KILLED her.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

pancho said:


> Some people usr their guns for home protection.
> Not a lot of home invaders will wait while you get your gun out of a safe and remove the trigger lock.


I've already heard all that rhetoric before. It's the same old same old over and over again and seems to be the only excuse people can come up with for being irresponsible but it's still not a valid reason for being irresponsible.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Interest in gun control seems to be cyclic, with high interest immediately after a shooting spree that quiets down after a few weeks. After interest quiets-down, the only meaningful interest in gun control is by the NRA lobby, until another shooting spree.

The reaction of gun rights advocates is always the same; immediately after a shooting spree "is not the time" to politicize the event. They say that because they know that in a few weeks interest in restrictive gun legislation will pass, so they can get back to their agenda of protecting gun rights.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't "allowed" now
> Neither is killing people "allowed"


If they aren't allowed now then how is it happening that crazy spree killers are gaining access to guns and going on killing sprees?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Where's your evidence to show she was?
> For all we* know*, she kept them secured until he KILLED her.


I don't have any more evidence than you do - which is from the media claiming that the mother was found shot to death by one of her own guns in her own home. How was she shot to death by her own gun if her guns were secured?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *They say that because* they know that in a few weeks interest in restrictive gun legislation will pass, so they can get back to their agenda of protecting gun rights


They say that because it's TRUE.

The anti's need to play on* emotions*, because there are no LOGICAL reasons for further gun restrictons.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If they aren't allowed now then *how is it happening* that crazy spree killers are gaining access to guns and going on killing sprees?


They stole them
Also, you seem to think mental illness is VISIBLE.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't have any more evidence than you do - which is from the media claiming that the mother was found shot to death by one of her own guns in her own home. How was she shot to death by her own gun if her guns were *secured*?


Banks are "secured"
They still get robbed


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> there are no LOGICAL reasons for further gun restrictons


So you think yesterday's killing spree of 20 children was logical?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They stole them
> Also, you seem to think mental illness is VISIBLE.


How were they able to steal them?

Yes, mental illness is visible and becoming more and more visible in more and more people every day.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They say that because it's TRUE.
> 
> The anti's need to play on* emotions*, because there are no LOGICAL reasons for further gun restrictons.


The question isn't whether to restrict gun ownership, the question is whether there is something we can do to prevent similar shooting sprees.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Banks are "secured"
> They still get robbed


Most often robbed at gun point. Yes or no?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> So you think yesterday's killing spree of 20 children was logical?
> .


I don't know how you could *possibly* derive that from what I* really* said


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Most often robbed at gun point. Yes or no?
> .


Often with nothing more than a *note*


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know how you could *possibly* derive that from what I* really* said


I don't know how you could possibly think there are no logical reasons for further gun restrictons.

I think we are at an impasse here.

Carry on. Nothing to see here, all is well.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The question isn't whether to restrict gun ownership, the question is whether there is something we can do to prevent similar shooting sprees.


*Your* answer to the question* is* more restrictions.
Gun control is always the FIRST answer given by those YOU elected


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I don't know how you could possibly think there are no logical reasons for *further gun restrictons*.
> .


Because they have never been proven to *reduce crime*
Data* shows* the opposite is true
More guns=LESS crime

I *showed* you all the statistics, and you're still countering with EMOTIONS


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I've already heard all that rhetoric before. It's the same old same old over and over again and seems to be the only excuse people can come up with for being irresponsible but it's still not a valid reason for being irresponsible.
> 
> .


Might not be valid to you but I would bet the people who have had to use their gun to protect themselves might see it a little different.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I've already heard all that rhetoric before. It's the same old same old over and over again and seems to be the only excuse people can come up with for being irresponsible but it's still not a valid reason for being irresponsible.
> 
> .


Is your car locked up in a safe?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Most often robbed at gun point. Yes or no?
> 
> .


A while back a woman robbed a bank in Jackson with two bricks and a note.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Most often banks are robbed at gun point. The topic is about guns and how they are used wrongfully. All the other ways that banks might be robbed are not relevant to the discussion and it's just an evasive red herring. Most banks are robbed at gun point, most people who are murdered are murdered by people with guns --- so let us stick to the topic of guns and their wrongful use.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The topic is about guns and *how they are used wrongfully*


You keep IGNORING the 99% of guns that are NEVER misused.

You focus on ONE PERSON'S actions, and ignore the *80 MILLION gun owners who never hurt anyone*, and quite often SAVE lives


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Most banks are robbed at gun point, most people who are murdered are murdered by people with guns --- so let us stick to the topic of guns and their wrongful use.


Most people who are murdered are murdered by people wearing socks, and who drank milk as children, and all of them had mothers. Maybe we should ban milk, socks and mothers? Most banks are robbed because they have money.... how about we ban money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because they have never been proven to *reduce crime*
> Data* shows* the opposite is true
> More guns=LESS crime
> 
> I *showed* you all the statistics, and you're still countering with EMOTIONS


Actually, there are positive correlations between gun laws, attitudes towards gun ownership, and even which political candidates states support.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/21/1112405/-Gun-Deaths-by-State-and-Other-Findings

There is no realistic doubt that stricter gun laws result in fewer shooting deaths.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There is no realistic doubt that stricter gun laws result in fewer shooting deaths.


Yep, there have been a couple of towns over the past few decades that insistes all of their citizens be armed... and the violent crime rates were drastically reduced as a result.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most people who are murdered are murdered by people wearing socks, and who drank milk as children, and all of them had mothers. Maybe we should ban milk, socks and mothers? Most banks are robbed because they have money.... how about we ban money?


More meaningless red herrings to throw into the discussion. This is helpful .... how? Maybe we should ban people who have nothing meaningful to contribute to serious discussions about a life and death situation. 

.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

pancho said:


> A while back a woman robbed a bank in Jackson with two bricks and a note.


A few weeks ago a guy in SW Pa robbed a gas station with a machete.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I think we should ban putting our kids on meds at the drop of a hat. Some kids are rambumctious. Some are sad. Some are painfully shy. Some have trouble paying attention. Some are quirky. Etc. That doesn't mean we have to medicate them to conform to some parent's or teacher's idea of a 'normal' child.

Come on. We all know this kid was on something. And that something, whether and anti depressive or an ADD med, has been linked to suicide and violent outbursts in teens and young adults. He has already been labeled as having a 'personality disorder', code for 'put him on meds!'

Quit doping up our children. We've had guns for a long time and public mass shootings seem to just have really cropped up in the last 15 to 20 years or so...just about the same amount of time that the practice of zombie-izing our children began.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FeralFemale said:


> I think we should ban putting our kids on meds at the drop of a hat. Some kids are rambumctious. Some are sad. Some are painfully shy. Some have trouble paying attention. Some are quirky. Etc. That doesn't mean we have to medicate them to conform to some parent's or teacher's idea of a 'normal' child.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The use of prescription drugs is already regulated, and each prescription is individually approved by a medical professional who is licensed to prescribe it. Are you suggesting that politicians tell doctors how to practice medicine?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> More meaningless red herrings to throw into the discussion. This is helpful .... how? Maybe we should ban people who have nothing meaningful to contribute to serious discussions about a life and death situation.
> 
> .


how is it helpful to throw the red herring argument about guns being the cause of these senseless killings? Its the idiots who commit the crimes that are the problem, not the tools they use to commit them. If we are ever going to rid our society of these kinds of problems, we will first need to recognize the REAL PROBLEM, and it aint the guns, nor the knives, nor the bombs, nor any other of the devices that the criminals can and will use. Wanna have a meaningful discussion about this issue, lets talk about the causes, and potential workable solutions. My bringing up what sounded to you like meaningless drivel was done to show you just how ridiculous the arguments for more gun control is... because they fall into the very same heading... non productive, useless nonsense. It makes no sense to ban anything and everything, just because it can be somehow connected to a crime. A dollars worth of house hold cleansers, readily available under 99 percent of house hold kitchen sinks can be used to wipe out hundreds of innocent victims. Banning kitchens might help... almost as much as banning guns.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That situation in NO WAY compares to a *true* "active shooter" scenario.
> They were "disturbing the peace"
> 
> 
> ...


Um, shooting rounds into trees, ie a loaded campground, is "kinda" an active shooter situation. They weren't actually aiming, I'll give you that. 

Thank god for the trees. Snort.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That situation in NO WAY compares to a *true* "active shooter" scenario.
> They were "disturbing the peace"
> 
> 
> ...


Um, I said there were already more then enough guns and trained users to take care of things when it all started. I was describing a situation where there were a lot of guns present, and trained users, and that was how it all actually, in a real life situation, went down. Anecdotal and all that though ha.

The way you spin things really fascinates me, I gotta say.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

There are over 130,000 primary and secondary schools in US with enrollment in excess of 50 million students, just for perspective.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, there are positive correlations between gun laws, attitudes towards gun ownership, and even which political candidates states support.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/21/1112405/-Gun-Deaths-by-State-and-Other-Findings
> 
> There is *no realistic doubt* that stricter gun laws result in fewer shooting deaths.


LMAO!!

The FIRST thing that popped up on your source was an ad wanting me to "tell Obama to start talking about* GUN CONTROL*"

Your "proof" shows *death rates* are higher, in most cases, by only
*ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT*

I'm betting they are counting JUSTIFIABLE homicides to reach those figures, whereas the anti gun states would all have to be the result of *murders* and suicides

You just can't bring yourself to face the *fact *that more guns PREVENT more* crimes*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> Um, shooting rounds into trees, ie a loaded campground, is *"kinda"* an active shooter situation. They weren't actually aiming, I'll give you that.
> 
> Thank god for the trees. Snort.


It's not even* remotely* related to THIS *context*.

If they HAD been shooting *at people*, they COULD have been stopped by another armed person


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LMAO!!
> 
> The FIRST thing that popped up on your source was an ad wanting me to "tell Obama to start talking about* GUN CONTROL*"
> 
> ...


Don't look now, but you're politicizing this shooting.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not even* remotely* related to THIS *context*.
> 
> If they HAD been shooting *at people*, they COULD have been stopped by another armed person


 
um, I thought shooting in the general direction of people was at least kinda like shooting at people. you would make an amazing defense lawyer.


----------



## notbutanapron (Jun 30, 2011)

Shooting at people. Shooting AT people. Semantics.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The use of prescription drugs is already regulated, and each prescription is individually approved by a medical professional who is licensed to prescribe it. Are you suggesting that politicians tell doctors how to practice medicine?


Only a prog would read my post and come away with my meaning more govt regulation.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

wyld thang said:


> um, I thought shooting in the general direction of people was at least kinda like shooting at people. you would make an amazing defense lawyer.


I have to go with BFF on this one. You were in danger, but you weren't in clear and present danger like you would be if those guys were purposefully gunning down people. Hunkering down and calling the cops was the correct choice in your circumstance. If one of the cc'ers at the camp went and 'took care' of those guys, they'd be going to jail for murder.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> More meaningless red herrings to throw into the discussion. This is helpful .... how? *Maybe we should ban people who have nothing meaningful to contribute to serious discussions about a life and death situation.*
> 
> .


 I have a much better idea.
How bout not having a discussion that involves *OUR* constitutional rights with some one* NOT* from the *USA*? :cowboy:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Don't look now, but you're politicizing this shooting.


No more than anyone else.
The media keeps *changing* the details to better fit the agenda 
The President politicized it before the bodies were cold
You continue to do the same :shrug:

Using a left wing source that* pushes the Dem agenda* is a pretty lame way to present your case.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> um, I thought shooting *in the general direction of* people was at least kinda like shooting at people. you would make an amazing defense lawyer


It's YOUR story.
It's not my fault the facts show they were NOT shooting AT people


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you suggesting that *politicians tell doctors how to practice medicine*?


Isn't that *Obamacare*?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I have a much better idea.
> How bout not having a discussion that involves *OUR* constitutional rights with some one* NOT* from the *USA*? :cowboy:


A little rude...but it's true that other countries don't understand the US and guns. No other country in modern history was formed like ours. We do have a 'love affair' with guns, though be it a rocky, love/hate relationship.

I've been reading the comments from foreign news sources and foreigners are being pretty nasty about what they have to say about Americans and guns. They just don't get it. Our country was founded by a hard fought revolution. The founding documents were specifically drafted to prevent our government from getting as tyrannical as our Mother Country was to us. An armed populace was a very important part of that. We also expanded into an untamed wilderness, so guns were a very important tool for survival.

It's a mindset that is very different for many foreigners to understand who don't have the freedoms we do. And it's not just guns. We, well most of us, take our constitutional rights seriously. All of them. If one falls, then so can they all. Such freedoms come with a price. We have to accept that price or we don't have those freedoms.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> If they aren't allowed now then how is it happening that crazy spree killers are gaining access to guns and going on killing sprees?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you think about it they are not following the rules. They use somebody else or steal them. How do you secure guns from criminals that have all the time they need to outwit any security you have? I know it sounds good to blame the owner of a gun for not securing it but the only way you can do that in most cases is to have it on you at all time.Just because she worked as a teacher and the law saying she can not have it with her then what can you do.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Most often banks are robbed at gun point. The topic is about guns and how they are used wrongfully. All the other ways that banks might be robbed are not relevant to the discussion and it's just an evasive red herring. Most banks are robbed at gun point, most people who are murdered are murdered by people with guns --- so let us stick to the topic of guns and their wrongful use.
> 
> .


The guns worked well from what I have heard it is the nut behind them that was wrongful. Oh I can see all kinds of physiologist laughing at the answer saying you can see mental illness.Where were you when John Wane Gracy was being looked for you can see mental illness you should have caught on real fast in that case.Of course you can see anybody with downs syndrome or the likes but that is another thread altogether.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

naturelover said:


> So you think yesterday's killing spree of 20 children was logical?
> 
> .


It was Not logical any more than tying it to gun control is logical. Guns are not the problem at all. Years ago you could walk into any hardware store and buy a gun or order it from 

JC Penney, Sears, Montgomery Ward, and a number of other places, no questions asked. Why did we not have mass shootings back then? Semi-Automatics have been available as far back as I can remember and they were no different than semi-automatics today. A Ruger 10/22 is the same gun whether it has a wood stock or the scary black one. The problem is societal and clamping down on guns will not solve it. People have been taught they are all victims of something and if they do bad things it is not their fault. We shouldn't be judgemental. Young people are not taught personal responsibility. When they start acting weird, we load them up on mind control drugs and send them to their room to play video games.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep IGNORING the 99% of guns that are NEVER misused.
> 
> You focus on ONE PERSON'S actions, and ignore the *80 MILLION gun owners who never hurt anyone*, and quite often SAVE lives


Wrong. I'm not interested in the 'good guys'. I am focusing on sick violent people who go on killing sprees with guns that they have access to. Why aren't you focusing on that?

.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> *A little rude*...but it's true that other countries don't understand the US and guns. No other country in modern history was formed like ours. We do have a 'love affair' with guns, though be it a rocky, love/hate relationship.
> 
> I've been reading the comments from foreign news sources and foreigners are being pretty nasty about what they have to say about Americans and guns. They just don't get it. Our country was founded by a hard fought revolution. The founding documents were specifically drafted to prevent our government from getting as tyrannical as our Mother Country was to us. An armed populace was a very important part of that. We also expanded into an untamed wilderness, so guns were a very important tool for survival.
> 
> It's a mindset that is very different for many foreigners to understand who don't have the freedoms we do. And it's not just guns. We, well most of us, take our constitutional rights seriously. All of them. If one falls, then so can they all. Such freedoms come with a price. We have to accept that price or we don't have those freedoms.


 I try to not be rude. At least I didn't request he/she to be banned from the conversation.
Hence,,, my comment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am focusing on sick violent people who go on killing sprees with guns that they have access to. Why aren't you focusing on that?


Gun control focuses ONLY on those *who follow the rules*
None of the "solutions" being offered will change THAT at all.
You can't stop killers from killing *BEFORE* they commit the act (unless you're there and ARMED)

Wasn't there a shooting spree in Canada this Summer?
Did your restrictions prevent that?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I have a much better idea.
> How bout not having a discussion that involves *OUR* constitutional rights with some one* NOT* from the *USA*? :cowboy:


I don't like that idea very much. I think I'll just keep on yapping, thank you very much. :cowboy:

Since when did it become a constitutional right for insane people to have access to guns and go on killing sprees?

.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Wrong. I'm not interested in the 'good guys'. I am focusing on sick violent people who go on killing sprees with guns that they have access to. Why aren't you focusing on that?
> 
> .


Relative to the number of people in US and the number of guns in US, these "killing sprees" are statistically rare. Each needs to be addressed individually to determine what should have been done to prevent it.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I don't like that idea very much. I think I'll just keep on yapping, thank you very much. :cowboy:
> 
> Since when did it become a constitutional right for insane people to have access to guns and go on killing sprees?
> 
> .


Until they are convicted of a crime or judge incompiant they have all the right as anybody else including owning a gun but that did not happen here. He stole a gun from his mother and used it to kill her and several other people.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The largest mass murder at a school was committed with bombs, not guns.


You are partially right. Andrew Kehoe, the 55-year-old perpetrator of the 1927 "Bath Massacre" in Michigan, ended his siege when he drove his truck, which was full of assorted shrapnel, next to the school building he had just blown up, and fired his rifle into some gunpowder, killing himself and several other people.

As for people and their base natures, the place was descended upon by souvenir hunters, some of whom brought jars with them.

A book, titled "Bath Massacre", came out about this several years ago. The final death toll was 45 - 38 children and 7 adults.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Since when did it become a constitutional right for insane people to have access to guns and go on killing sprees?


There you go PRETENDING that is true
It's already illegal for those "insane people" to have a gun

These are the LEGAL requirements:

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-Form-4473.htm


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already illegal for those "insane people" to have a gun


Yet he picked up a gun and used it anyway. Go figure... :stars:


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Yes he picked up a gun and used it anyway. Go figure... :stars:


I have never applied to buy a gun but I could get my hands on one easily. My brother has rifles and shotguns. His firearms and ammo are unlocked. My neighbor showed me the handgun he keeps loaded in his nightstand. My boss keeps a handgun in his glove box. There are lots of guns out there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I have never applied to buy a gun but I could get my hands on one easily. My brother has rifles and shotguns. His firearms and ammo are unlocked. My neighbor showed me the handgun he keeps loaded in his nightstand. My boss keeps a handgun in his glove box. There are lots of guns out there.


Sure. The problem is access to firearms, not just the legality if buying a firearm.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Wasn't there a shooting spree in Canada this Summer?
> Did your restrictions prevent that?


There were several, all gang related. Unvouched gang members with smuggled restricted handguns shooting and killing rival gang members as well as innocent bystanders who got in the way at the time.

I know it happened so I guess restrictions didn't prevent it and restrictions weren't taken into consideration, eh?

Do you think those gang related incidents are the same kind of thing as a mentally ill person killing his parent then immediately afterwards going on a killing spree against little school children?

*********************************



> It's already illegal for those "insane people" to have a gun
> 
> These are the LEGAL requirements:
> 
> http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4...-Form-4473.htm


I looked at that ATF form 4473 Page 1. What recognized authority is required to sign to vouch for the applicants competency? 


I think what is the real concern for all gun owners and wannabee gun owners in America is not so much that there might be more restrictions put on guns but rather the fear that all present gun owners and wannabees will be required to take stringent mental competency assessment tests and have to be vouched for by persons with authority to attest to their mental competency and character.

Or perhaps you already have to do mental competency assessments (I don't know if you do or not) and maybe people are afraid that those competency tests will become much more restrictive and then some people will lose their guns that they already have because they are found to be no longer competent enough.

.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Sure. The problem is access to firearms, not just the legality if buying a firearm.


Access to firearms is a problem?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I understand that already. Why aren't ALL jurisdictions like that? Why aren't all gun owners required to own gun safes and trigger locks and to provide evidence that they have gun safes and trigger locks to show that their guns are restricted access?
> 
> Furthermore, for those jurisdiction where gun owners are already required to have gun safes and trigger locks, how is anyone to have evidence that those gun owners are being responsible about using the gun safes and trigger locks?
> 
> .


 Well I waited to get into the fray. I live alone . Why should I own a safe or have trigger locks? The mom bought these guns and I wonder why. I feel the son wanted her buy them. He was only of age to buy the AR. If someone steals from me its not my problem . Do you think every gun owner needs to buy a $ 3000 safe? A $200 torch and grinder can cut thru most iv'e seen!!!!!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wyld thang said:


> Um, I said there were already more then enough guns and trained users to take care of things when it all started. I was describing a situation where there were a lot of guns present, and trained users, and that was how it all actually, in a real life situation, went down. Anecdotal and all that though ha.
> 
> The way you spin things really fascinates me, I gotta say.


Yep, I liked your anecdotal story... the one with the happy ending where nobody killed nobody. Lotsa guns present, lotsa drugs and alcohol, and yet not a single person went berserk and started killing anyone.  Maybe, just maybe these people were semi-sane. Unlike our shooter yesterday.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Wrong. I'm not interested in the 'good guys'. I am focusing on *sick violent people who go on killing sprees* with guns that they have access to. Why aren't you focusing on that?
> 
> .


Ok, so lets focus on the problem.... mental rejects that kill people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *The problem is access to firearms*, not just the legality if buying a firearm.


The problem is not enough people are ALLOWED access.
That's why they call PEOPLE WITH GUNS when there's trouble

More guns=*less* crime


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you think those gang related incidents are the same kind of thing as a mentally ill person killing his parent then immediately afterwards going on *a killing spree* against *little school children*?


I think *anyone* killing anyone is "mentally ill" (UNLESS it's self defense)

Their age makes no *real *difference, and* laws* won't ever stop it any more than a* total ban* on drugs has stopped drug use

The ONE thing that *can* stop them is an honest person with their own weapon


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The problem is not enough people are ALLOWED access.
> That's why they call PEOPLE WITH GUNS when there's trouble
> 
> More guns=*less* crime


In the case of this particular incident, I am pretty sure that if the principal and other faculty/staff, had been ALLOWED (or possibly even been required) to carry guns on their person, that it could have had an entirely different ending.... one in which all those kids would be playing with toys this Christmas. Alas, they did the best they could, but going up against a lunatic with a gun armed only with text books and bare hands..... bad ending.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Marshloft said:


> I have a much better idea.
> How bout not having a discussion that involves *OUR* constitutional rights with some one* NOT* from the *USA*? :cowboy:


* * * * * * * * * * *
many, many times on this exact same point with her in the past. 

As I already stated, she refuses to take the hint.

Somebody's long nose keeps crossing over

the border where it doesn't belong

and isn't wanted.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't that *Obamacare*?


* * * * * * * *:cowboy:
When you're hot, you're RED HOT! ! !


----------



## TacticalTrout (Jan 7, 2010)

naturelover said:


> I think what is the real concern for all gun owners and wannabee gun owners in America is not so much that there might be more restrictions put on guns but rather the fear that all present gun owners and wannabees will be required to take stringent mental competency assessment tests and have to be vouched for by persons with authority to attest to their mental competency and character.
> 
> Or perhaps you already have to do mental competency assessments (I don't know if you do or not) and maybe people are afraid that those competency tests will become much more restrictive and then some people will lose their guns that they already have because they are found to be no longer competent enough.
> .


I would liken this idea to the founding fathers of this country asking the British for permission to maintain arms. You see, the problem with this idea is simply who gets to decide if we are mentally competent to own firearms. This is a kicker in regard to the Second Amendment....you either get it or you don't.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

copperkid3 said:


> I've more than "hinted" . . . . many, many times on this exact same point with her in the past.
> 
> As I already stated, *she refuses to take the hint*.
> 
> ...


Many, many times. It's true. And definitely more than just hints, more like blatant yelling, ranting and hair pulling and covering yourself with ashes of frustration. :help:


:hysterical:

I love it, I think it's hilarious that you get so worked up because you can't dominate me and take away my freedom of speech. You hate it that I resist you and I won't do what you tell me to do, and you don't know what to do about it because you can't silence me when you don't like what I say, you poor, poor frazzled fellow. :hair 

And yet _you_ can't resist _me_,  you still read my posts and challenge them and make comments about them to other people and then tell me to go away and not darken your doorstep. Yet you still read my posts over and over again. 

The simplest thing you could do is just not read my posts or put me on ignore if you're really serious about hating me so much but you don't do that. Why not? Because you can't resist reading my posts. Resistance is futile. You are a moth to my flame. 

Oh, lordie, lordie, woe is poor you. :sob:


:hysterical:
.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

TacticalTrout said:


> I would liken this idea to the founding fathers of this country asking the British for permission to maintain arms. You see, the problem with this idea is simply who gets to decide if we are mentally competent to own firearms. This is a kicker in regard to the Second Amendment....you either get it or you don't.


So ..... I think I hit a nerve there and was closer to the real root of gun owner's fears than most people care to even think about, let alone admit to.

Can I safely assume then that you do not YET have to take mental competency tests?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think what is the real concern for all gun owners and wannabee gun owners in America is not so much that there might be more restrictions put on guns but rather the fear that all present gun owners and wannabees will be
> 
> *required to take stringent mental competency assessment tests* and
> 
> *have to be vouched for by persons with authority to attest to their mental competency and character.*


I'd be happy to do the mental test..............*10 years* *AFTER* they make it a *requirement* *for VOTING*, along with the same photo ID and FINGERPRINTING that's required to get a carry permit

The second one is often required to obtain a carry permit or a permit to purchase


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I think it is going to happen, and for all people who want all firearms, not just for people who want to carry.


.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I can't find where the shooter was "insane" or "mentally unstable"?
Is this just speculation or is there hard evidence to back this line thought up?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I can't find where the shooter was "insane" or "mentally unstable"?
> Is this just speculation or is there hard evidence to back this line thought up?



Not trying to pick on you Laura, but the only evidence needed is the bodies of those innocent children. Do you know anyone in their right mind who could have done this?
No, I would never have let him plead insanity that's not the point, but there's no question this was an act of someone who lost their mind. I'm glad he decided to go meet his Judge voluntarily. That saved us the trouble of sending him there.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Not trying to pick on you Laura, but the only evidence needed is the bodies of those innocent children. Do you know anyone in their right mind who could have done this?
> No, I would never have let him plead insanity that's not the point, but there's no question this was an act of someone who lost their mind. I'm glad he decided to go meet his Judge voluntarily. That saved us the trouble of sending him there.


I do not see you 'pickin' on me'!! 

Yes, I know people out there are capable of what happened in CT.
Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, etc......
Those are some where were caught and convicted of their crimes.

Yes, there are cold, calculated people who murder every single day....and no physical evidence of any 'mental' problems.
They are just evil, and void of conscience. 
They walk among us every day.

We will never know now.

It could have been that he was a completely spoiled brat, that his mommy and daddy cow-tailed too. Let him have his way always, so that it didn't hurt his little self esteem. He could have just been so enraged with envy that his mom was spending time with her students instead of him.
He could have been PERFECTLY sane, just consumed with selfishness and rage.

I want to know what really happened in that kids head.
I want to know if he was on drugs, legal or illegal.
I want to know what his diet was.
I want to know what his home life was like
I want to know what he did for fun.
I want to know.....so I can decide what the contributing factors were to this event.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I do not see you 'pickin' on me'!!
> 
> Yes, I know people out there are capable of what happened in CT.
> Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, etc......
> ...



I listened to an FBI person doing a radio interview on Friday evening He said that they do very extensive profiling on these types of killers. They have found that the only thing that they have in common is a sick and defective mind! He said they are imposable to screen for..


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

I don't know anything about guns, so I have to ask stupid questions. I know many of you are pretty knowledgeable.

Reports I read say the weapon used to shoot the school children and staff was the long gun, a .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster.

Does semiautomatic mean the shooter has to pull the trigger for each shot? How much time between shots would be required?

Would a single magazine hold the reputed 100 plus rounds fired, or would he have reloaded?

My only point of reference is a .22-caliber single shot rifle I used on the target range at Scout camp one summer long ago. The gun in question being a similar caliber, would the two rifles have a similar effect on a target, or does this depend on the specific ammunition used?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The reports are confusing. An earlier one said the rifle was found in his car. Now the media seems to be focusing on the rifle. The bushmaster is a garden variety rifle improperly called an assault rifle. 

Semiautomatic simply means the rifle loads a cartridge into the chamber each time you pull the trigger. You can fire it as fast as you can pull the trigger. That works for any firearm except those that require other manipulation to reload such as black powder rifles, bolt action rifles, etc.

He would have had to reload four or five times to fire a hundred rounds. The .223, mistakenly called a high power round by the media, only shares an approximate caliber with the .22. The .223 has a larger and longer case (more powder). The bullet shape and weight are different too.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Thank you Darren.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Here's some headlines off Drudge this morning about the guy. 

*REVENGE OF THE 'GOTH' LONER... 
Mother took killer to shooting range...
Pulled him out of school...
Unable 'to feel physical pain'...
Intelligent and shy...*


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The number of these type of incidents hasn't increased in years. 

It is the media coverage that has increased. Fox has been doing 24 hour/day coverage since Friday.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

&#8220;Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when
everybody stands around reloading&#8221;.
&#8211;Thomas Jefferson
When injustice becomes law
Resistance becomes duty.
Thomas Jefferson
&#8220;The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.&#8221; &#8212; Thomas Jefferson


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

post from Michael at Breitbart
If You Have any Doubt About the Results of Gun Control&#8230;
The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Turkey established gun control in 1911.
From 1915 to 1917, over 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, a total of over 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, over 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, about 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The US gun debate is not about wacko mass murderers or fending off intruders, it is about being armed to fight off TYRANNY. The Red Coats were headed to Concord to seize a cache of weapons and powder when the Revolutionary War was ignited. Guns are ONLY about defending citizens from a tyrannic despot, all else is noise.


----------



## TacticalTrout (Jan 7, 2010)

naturelover said:


> So ..... I think I hit a nerve there and was closer to the real root of gun owner's fears than most people care to even think about, let alone admit to.
> 
> Can I safely assume then that you do not YET have to take mental competency tests?
> 
> .


My concealed carry permit requires that I am subject to a background check by my local and state police...my fingerprints are put on file with the FBI. If there is any history of mental illness or felony crimes I would have been denied my permit.

Do you not see the potential for bias in a mental competency test? "This guy has been to a Tea Party rally...deny his right". "This one says he disagrees with our current Presidential Administration....better not let him have any firearms". Our right was given by our creator and ratified by our founders and the Second Amendment.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

"Guns are ONLY about defending citizens from a tyrannic despot, all else is noise."

Except, some had no guns and got r done. The example of Ghandi and India getting out from underneath British rule n all that. Yup, absolutely nothing to learn there, move along, move along.

I might posit that Ghandi's lil idea changed Britain as well.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

wyld thang said:


> "Guns are ONLY about defending citizens from a tyrannic despot, all else is noise."
> 
> Except, some had no guns and got r done. The example of Ghandi and India getting out from underneath British rule n all that. Yup, absolutely nothing to learn there, move along, move along.
> 
> I might posit that Ghandi's lil idea changed Britain as well.


Would Ghandi have been successful with any country other than Great Britain?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

naturelover said:


> So ..... I think I hit a nerve there and was closer to the real root of gun owner's fears than most people care to even think about, let alone admit to.
> 
> Can I safely assume then that you do not YET have to take mental competency tests?
> 
> .


 then they had better give mental competency tests for anyone wishing to get a drivers license, and for anyone purchasing alcohol, and for anyone purchasing a knife, and for anyone purchasing a baseball bat, and for anyone purchasing or in possession of any thing that may be used to cause harm to other individuals.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Wonder if a school bus driver went crazy and drove a bus load of kids into a river and drowned them all if people would be calling for a law against school busses?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jaredI said:


> then they had better give mental competency tests for anyone wishing to get a drivers license, and for anyone purchasing alcohol, and for anyone purchasing a knife, and for anyone purchasing a baseball bat, and for anyone purchasing or in possession of any thing that may be used to cause harm to other individuals.


This issue really deserves to be taken seriously. I don't think you are.

My problem with mental illness screening is that diagnosis of mental instability is subjective. Once accused, they will no doubt act on the side of caution, so it would be difficult to challenge or reverse. It also opens the door to people reporting questionable behavior as revenge.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Here's some woo-woo going around some conspiracy sites. If true, it is weird. This shooter's dad is a VP of something at GE and is scheduled to testify in the Libor scandal. They are also saying the mall shooter's dad is also scheduled to testify in the same scandal. If true, what are the odds?

http://www.economist.com/node/21558281


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yes, I know people out there are capable of what happened in CT.
> *Charles Manson*, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, etc......
> Those are some where were caught and convicted of their crimes.
> 
> I want to know what really happened in that kids head.


In Charlies case I always found it interesting that he was convicted and has lived out his life behind bars.... but was not even at the scene of the horrendous crimes. His case was one of the earlier "trials" in this country that was decided by the media, there have been quite a few since that time. 

Now, as to what happened with this kid... I have a theory... he was "special", and had been coddled, and treated special for quite a long time. Some might even had called it spoiled. What provoked the incident? easy... mom loved the kids at school more than him, and when she took her last package of twinkies to school, and he didnt get one.... yeppers, he blew his stack. So who is really at fault here? was it the kid? nope, was it mom? nope, was it the evil CEO at the twinkies factory who opted to go out of business rather than pay fair wages to all the little workers??? .... BINGO! we have found our evil villain! I am pretty sure that if one were to investigate deep enough we would find GW Bush was mixed up in this too.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Mom didn't work at the school. She was a SAHM and a formerly worked in finance in Boston. Which leaves us with why the heck did he target the school??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> Mom didn't work at the school. She was a SAHM and a formerly worked in finance in Boston. Which leaves us with why the heck did he target the school??


Interesting.... all the media talked about for the first two days was that she was a teacher at the school, and it was the kids in her class that he targeted. Gotta link to this new development?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> I think it is going to happen, and for all people who want all firearms, not just for people who want to carry.
> 
> 
> .


Based on what happened with the firearms registration in Canada, the funding for school security that stopped here and the changes in funding for those with mental health issues here, I think you're wrong.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting.... all the media talked about for the first two days was that she was a teacher at the school, and it was the kids in her class that he targeted. Gotta link to this new development?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/us/connecticut-lanza-family-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 



> Neighbor Gina McDade said Nancy Lanza was a "stay-at-home mom" and not a teacher or part-time employee of Sandy Hook Elementary, as some media reports stated.
> Nancy Lanza had earlier worked in finance in Boston and Connecticut, said a friend who knew her well but who didn't want her name published. Nancy Lanza had retired or was on a break from her career, but she was not a teacher, the friend said.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This issue really deserves to be taken seriously. I don't think you are.
> 
> My problem with mental illness screening is that diagnosis of mental instability is subjective. Once accused, they will no doubt act on the side of caution, so it would be difficult to challenge or reverse. It also opens the door to people reporting questionable behavior as revenge.


I think he was. You can have a mental health examination any time you want one. All you need is to pay a physiologist and anything you tell him must be kept to him self and can not be released with out your permission. But when you are ordered by a judge to have one all of what he finds out must be told to the court then the court must decide whet you are bad enough to warren having you rights taken away.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> ..... I think you're wrong.


Oh well, you're not the only one to think that, so join the crowd. 

I'm quite confident that I'm right about it. All things considered, I foresee no other logical solution.

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/us/connecticut-lanza-family-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Thanks


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This issue really *deserves to be taken seriously*. I don't think you are.


I agree.
Taking away EVERYONE'S *rights* based on the actions of ONE INDIVIDUAL is very serious, and *shouldn't be tolerated.*


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I agree.
> Taking away EVERYONE'S *rights* based on the actions of ONE INDIVIDUAL is very serious, and *shouldn't be tolerated.*


I didn't suggest taking anyone's rights away. All I'm suggesting is that it's time to have a discussion about what might be done to prevent shooting sprees.


----------



## zito (Dec 21, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There is no realistic doubt that stricter gun laws result in fewer shooting deaths.


Good point. Guess that's why Chicago and Washington D.C. are perpetually in the running for all those "safest city EVER" awards!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I didn't suggest taking anyone's rights away. All I'm suggesting is that *it's time to have a discussion* about what might be done to prevent shooting sprees.


Save the Doublespeak for the gullible
I KNOW you're talking about more gun control.:



> Originally Posted by *Nevada*
> _There is no realistic doubt that stricter gun laws result in fewer shooting deaths._


That's not true, but it shows how you think


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Appears that 'someone' besides . . . .a few deranged shooters

targeting innocents in cinemas, malls or elementary school grounds. . . .

have a little problem staying on their meds. 

Reality has never been your favorite form of hyperbole has it?

Please. . . PLEASE get the help you so desparately need and deserve. 

If that social medicine thingy isn't working out for, up there in canook land 

(and clearly, your post is VERY clear evidence that it doesn't), 

I'm willing to let you have my share of Obamacare! Of course, you'll probably have

to sneak across the border to get it. Not to worry . . . just keep your head down;

some of us patriot types will probably be setting up random target ranges on the south

side of the 49th parallel in order to preserve our constitutional rights. 

Speak loudly on the north side of that great divide . . .

we wouldn't want you to forget how to exercise your

'limited' use of "free speech"!
* * * * * * * * * * * *


naturelover said:


> Many, many times. It's true. And definitely more than just hints, more like blatant yelling, ranting and hair pulling and covering yourself with ashes of frustration. :help:
> 
> 
> :hysterical:
> ...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

zito said:


> Good point. Guess that's why Chicago and Washington D.C. are perpetually in the running for all those "safest city EVER" awards!


 
Kind like who we give "Nobel Peace Prize" to now days,or how about "Person of the Year".


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I think a freaked out teen is recieving too much media attention. Sure... This event is horrid. But guess what - now that the other terrorists see the media coverage, when is the next psycho going to rush out and kill a bunch of people just because it gets them to the news the fastest?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I think a freaked out teen is recieving too much media attention. Sure... This event is horrid. But guess what - now that the other terrorists see the media coverage, when is the next psycho going to rush out and kill a bunch of people just because it gets them to the news the fastest?


How did you feel about 9/11 getting as much press coverage as it did?


----------



## kaitala (Mar 24, 2011)

All I can say is, for me, I'm glad I didn't have cable during Sandy, and I'm not interested in the 24/7 coverage. I tune in to the news after my daughter is in bed to get an update here and there, but it's not good for me to be thoroughly in undated at every moment with this. 

After the initial reports, I began to watch some of the coverage to examine the media. How much of this was legitimate reporting of facts? How much was inflammatory, not even contributing to the story? It was quickly evident they were interjecting sheer emotion, not offering anything factual, just trying to keep viewers watching. That's when I decided not to watch. 

It was horrible, and sad. And I'm sure others will think I'm heartless for this, but I don't understand the people who have no friends or relatives who were related to the victims (heck, don't even know anyone in the northeast), but are "devastated" by this. I'm still seeing Facebook posts by people Talking about how they're still crying, Won't send their kids to school, etc. I don't doubt they're upset, but I think they're going overboard and the media coverage doesn't help.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And yet _you_ *can't resist* _me_,





> *Resistance is futile*. You are a moth to my flame


I *could* resist
I *choose* not to


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How did you feel about 9/11 getting as much press coverage as it did?


:hijacked: :nono:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I *could* resist
> I *choose* not to


Yeah, but you don't hate me or get disrespectful even if we disagree with each other so that makes it an easier choice for you, you could take it or leave it and either way it would be no skin off your nose. When someone hates something or someone the object of their hatred is irresistable and becomes a consuming obsession with the aggrieved one. They just can't leave it alone, like the way a moth can't leave a candle flame alone, or an angry hornet can't stop attacking a light bulb at night.

It's kind of like how some people get about politics, religion and guns. 

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Oh well, you're not the only one to think that, so join the crowd.
> 
> I'm quite confident that I'm right about it. All things considered, I foresee no other logical solution.
> 
> .


Most folks do believe they are right... even when their "logic" is so very far out of whack. There is no "logical solution" to a problem that doesnt exist. Attempting to guess when some nutcase is going to get their wires crossed is a bit like guessing when an earthquake is going to strike. We know both may happen.... someday... somewhere... and most likely with devastating results, but there is not much to be done to prevent either one from happening. Its really not a problem until AFTER the fact, and what needs to happen then is for all of us to work together to clean up the mess. Not run around in circles, screaming and shouting, and causing more problems out of panic.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most folks do believe they are right... even when their "logic" is so very far out of whack. There is no "logical solution" to a problem that doesnt exist. Attempting to guess when some nutcase is going to get their wires crossed is a bit like guessing when an earthquake is going to strike. We know both may happen.... someday... somewhere... and most likely with devastating results, but there is not much to be done to prevent either one from happening. Its really not a problem until AFTER the fact, and what needs to happen then is for all of us to work together to clean up the mess. Not run around in circles, screaming and shouting, and causing more problems out of panic.


I looked at what you wrote and the first thing that popped into my head was that exactly the same things could be said about dealing with the aftermath of explosive diarrhea where no toilet was available. The thing is, mental illness and diarrhea are both problems that exist and there are logical solutions to both problems if people are willing to work together on them instead of ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. You don't just clean up the mess and then forget about it and idly wait for it to happen again without trying to implement a solution so the same devestating mess doesn't happen again. If you do ignore it then eventually you end up to your neck and awash in deep ..... you know what.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The thing is,* mental illness* and* diarrhea* are both problems that exist and there are logical solutions to both problems* if people are willing to work together* on them instead of ignoring them and pretending they don't exist


You don't solve a *mental illness problem* by banning guns any more than you'd solve diarrhea by banning TOILETS

The thing about "people working together" is *to the DEMS* it means US giving up something and THEY give up nothing, and gain more GOVT CONTROL.

*They already know it won't stop any crimes*


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Here's the part that nobody (to my knowledge) has mentioned yet:

Reports say that Lanza used 9mm pistols. 

So, what exactly is the solution here?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Wanda said:


> I listened to an FBI person doing a radio interview on Friday evening He said that they do very extensive profiling on these types of killers. They have found that the only thing that they have in common is a sick and defective mind! He said they are imposable to screen for..


I cannot find any reports that speak to his diagnoised disease?




poppy said:


> Here's some headlines off Drudge this morning about the guy.
> 
> *REVENGE OF THE 'GOTH' LONER...
> Mother took killer to shooting range...
> ...


They are snippits but I am really looking for some hard evidence.
Was he officially dianoised by a doctor with a specific mental disorder?
Have they found his prescriptions to prove he was "off his meds"?

What this kid did was unspeakable horror. Evil to the 22nd power.
But
His brother, and his father probably want answers too.
I know I would.

There's too much spectulation and misinformation out right now.
I guess you will get that when folks are glued to the tube and the only way to keep them there is to give them "something".

I hate the media. They suck.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I didn't suggest taking anyone's rights away. All I'm suggesting is that it's time to have a discussion about what might be done to prevent shooting sprees.


To do that we need to address mental illness in our society and treatment prior committing a criminal act. The FBI needs authority to cross check databases. Federal funds for school security need to be restored. We need to allow CCW in those states that are currently not shall issue states through the proposed federal CCW law. Gun free zones such as schools should be modified to allow legitimate CCW carry.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

*CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME

*What if, this is the plan:

1. Disarm the public......by playing to their emotions.
Show all the horrific gun crimes so they public will willingly GIVE AWAY their rights, and rat on their neighbors who won't.......*ALL THE WHILE PLANTING THE SEEDS* of euthanasia in their heads for the 'insane'. 

2. Have enough "insane" people commit crimes that that not only will the public gladly give away their guns and rat on their neighbors who won't BUT then feel completely justified in 'putting down' a person who is 'mentally off'.

And who, my dear, gets to decide, "who's off"???

Look at 9-11
Look at what we GAVE AWAY WILLINGLY......cause we as a nation were all wrapped up in emotions!!!

I keep hearing "gun control, if there was gun control this would not have happened"?
Really? Well there are laws in place that say you cannot have a firearm on school property. Clearly LAW BROKEN
But it someone in that office was armed?
How many babies might have been opening presents in week.

*THINGS LIKE THIS CAUSE MORE DIVISION
THIS IS ALL ABOUT DIVISION.
*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> I looked at what you wrote and the first thing that popped into my head was that exactly the same things could be said about dealing with the aftermath of explosive diarrhea where no toilet was available. The thing is, mental illness and diarrhea are both problems that exist and there are logical solutions to both problems if people are willing to work together on them instead of ignoring them and pretending they don't exist. You don't just clean up the mess and then forget about it and idly wait for it to happen again without trying to implement a solution so the same devestating mess doesn't happen again. If you do ignore it then eventually you end up to your neck and awash in deep ..... you know what.
> 
> .


So what is your solution? I say we ban violent video games.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> So what is your solution? I say we ban violent video games.


I say we ban divorce, same sex marriages, domestic violence,day care centers, chemicals in our food, and every false god.

Guess what.
Ban all you want.
If someone is bent on doing evil....they will do it.
Gun, knife, car, pencil, rake, fertilizer, you name it.

Evil is present. It rules and reigns as long as we allow it, and feed it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wyld thang said:


> "Guns are ONLY about defending citizens from a tyrannic despot, all else is noise."
> 
> Except, some had no guns and got r done. The example of Ghandi and India getting out from underneath British rule n all that. Yup, absolutely nothing to learn there, move along, move along.
> 
> I might posit that Ghandi's lil idea changed Britain as well.


 Ghandi didn't completely dismiss the use of violence.

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence." 

http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/Doctrine of the sword.htm


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Evil is present. It rules and reigns as long as we allow it, and feed it.


Evil is simply the name we assign to behavior the majority determine to be unacceptable to society. 

To blame the shooting on evil is to throw up our hands and say I give up.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, but you don't hate me or get disrespectful even if we disagree with each other so that makes it an easier choice for you, you could take it or leave it and either way it would be no skin off your nose. When someone hates something or someone the object of their hatred is irresistable and becomes a consuming obsession with the aggrieved one. They just can't leave it alone, like the way a moth can't leave a candle flame alone, or an angry hornet can't stop attacking a light bulb at night.
> 
> It's kind of like how some people get about politics, religion and guns.
> 
> .


* * * * * *
futility. I challenge you to present evidence of even 

ONE thread that clearly points

out your claim(s); i.e. that I hate you. 

If you are less than forthcoming, then I expect you to seek professional help . . . 

even if it only consists of being bled by leeches.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> To blame the shooting on evil is to throw up our hands and say I give up.


To blame it on the* guns* is to say "I'm clueless".
The *worst* mass murders in the country didn't involve any guns at all


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Lets move on to solving the problem. Schools need batter security. Some districts allow teachers to carry.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/1...re-teachers-carry.html#storylink=omni_popular


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> To blame it on the* guns* is to say "I'm clueless".
> The *worst* mass murders in the country didn't involve any guns at all


Like or don't, the reality is that Obama and democrats in congress were handed a huge cache of political capital when those children were shot. I believe that some extent of additional restriction on gun ownership is inevitable now.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, the reality is that Obama and democrats in congress were handed a huge cache of political capital when those children were shot. I believe that some extent of additional restriction on gun ownership is inevitable now.



That is the absolute saddest aspect of our political system, tragedy brings out the political sharks. Never mind facing the true problems, the root problems, mental illness just push forward an agenda. Even it the agenda doesn't address the problem in any remote way..


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, the reality is that Obama and democrats in congress were handed a huge cache of political capital when those children were shot. I believe that some extent of additional restriction on gun ownership is inevitable now.


The largest killer of kids by guns is the government. Waco=90 kids. Government sharpshooter Lon Hurushi(sp) shot an un-armed Vicky Weaver AND her baby at Ruby ridge. They also killed thousands of innocent woman and childeren=collateral damage in wars.

How many innocent folks have cops killed?

We need to ban the government from having any weapons.

The only reasonable solution is to arm every citizen that wants to carry a weapon. Criminals wouldn't know who their next victim would be cause they always pick no gun target rich areas.

We have soooo many guns laws on the books now, no one knows them all. Why do we need more? Yea, I know more government control!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> That is the absolute saddest aspect of our political system, tragedy brings out the political sharks. Never mind facing the true problems, the root problems, mental illness just push forward an agenda. Even it the agenda doesn't address the problem in any remote way..


Typical liberals. Take advantage of a horrible tragedy to push their anti-Constitution agendas. I always thought that liberals were just that, liberal. It appears their only liberal on thing they want, and to heck with everything else. I would think that liberals would want folks armed because that make the field more "fair"!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Like or don't, the reality is that Obama and democrats in congress were handed a huge cache of political capital when those children were shot. I believe that some extent of additional restriction on gun ownership is inevitable now.


Not with the current House of Representatives. Democrats may run their mouths now, but the vulnerable ones will be up for re-election in two years. There may be a few senators that will be vulnerable too. Gore's defeat traumatized a lot of Democrats. Even Kerry back pedaled on more gun control when running for president. That picture of him with a shotgun went a long way to show him as he is.

Fortunately the House of Representatives has to agree on any new law. To change the Second Amendment, it has to go to the states. That isn't happening. Check and mate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> That is the absolute saddest aspect of our political system, tragedy brings out the political sharks. Never mind facing the true problems, the root problems, mental illness just push forward an agenda. Even it the agenda doesn't address the problem in any remote way..


Maybe you forgot, but we put the entire country on hold for 5 years so Bush could take political advantage of 9/11. In my lifetime, I've never seen an event exploited for political advantage the way 9/11 was.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Evil is simply the name we assign to behavior the majority determine to be unacceptable to society.
> 
> To blame the shooting on evil is to throw up our hands and say I give up.


Not true.
Evil is present.

Equally to not call evil what it is and where it manifests itself is to legislate out of hopeless frustration, and nothing changes.
Evil, is still present.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Maybe you forgot, but we put the entire country on hold for 5 years so Bush could take political advantage of 9/11. In my lifetime, I've never seen an event exploited for political advantage the way 9/11 was.


Did you forget the pictures of flags every where after 9/11? Bush had a lot of popular support initially.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not true.
> Evil is present.
> 
> Equally to not call evil what it is and where it manifests itself is to legislate out of hopeless frustration, and nothing changes.
> Evil, is still present.


I don't buy it. 
The kid wasn't evil. 
He committed an evil act.
Why? Because he had mental problems and probably a drug problem.

Evil makes me think we need to bring back witch doctors and burning at the stake.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I understand the concept of preserving your rights to bear arms in the context of keeping the government honest but, quite frankly, America will fail because of social deterioration and politics before any black helicopters come and take you away to concentration camps. Unless the citizens plan on charging the white house and forcibly removing the government it would be more effective to put a little less emphasis on guns and a lot more effort into getting involved in the community and politics and changing things from a grassroots level.The Ghandi example is a valid one showing that it's possible for change to happen peacefully but it requires people to get involved and sacrifice a lot of themselves to get it it done. Unfortunately, the US government (and others but this conversation is about the US) and big business and special interest groups are doing it themselves by nibbling away on the edges of your freedoms and you have to bite back by involving yourselves in society rather than hunkering down in bunkers with preps behind a wall of guns.

Those guns did not pick themselves up, drive themselves to the school and start spitting bullets around on their own. Guns are not the problem and they are not the solution, they are a symptom. Arming everyone in the US will not solve the underlying problems any more than taking all the guns away.

I"m not for or against gun control but it seems that people get so entrenched in arguing the point that the real problems get pushed aside.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't buy it.
> The kid wasn't evil.
> He committed an evil act.
> Why? Because he had mental problems and probably a drug problem.
> ...


Just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it's not true.

Some folks don't "buy" guncontrol will help. Some do.
Some folks don't "buy" big pharma has anything to do with this. Some do.
Some folks don't "buy" that its the poison in our food. Some do.
Some folks don't "buy" it's in our immunizations. Some do.
Some folks don't "buy" into euthanasia of the mentally ill. Some do.

Not witch doctors or burning at the stake.
Maybe an exorcism. But not burning at the stake.....

The kid was not evil. Evil invaded his empty space, and took over.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> The kid was not evil. Evil invaded his empty space, and took over.


I think I saw that on an episode of Star Trek.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> I think I saw that on an episode of Star Trek.


Actually, Star Wars is a great word picture for the Redemption in Scripture....and an even better one for "the Dark Side" (IE Evil):clap:


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Maybe you forgot, but we put the entire country on hold for 5 years so Bush could take political advantage of 9/11. In my lifetime, I've never seen an event exploited for political advantage the way 9/11 was.


Did I forget of course not, so continue with more or address the problem? I did not vote for Bush. I guess what you are saying is the present admin is just another Bush admin..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Did I forget of course not, so continue with more or address the problem? I did not vote for Bush. I guess what you are saying is the present admin is just another Bush admin..


What I'm saying is that when democrats take advantage of a situation the same way republicans have done, you object.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What I'm saying is that when democrats take advantage of a situation the same way republicans have done, you object.


Because it's not the same! Rahm has even said so!


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I object to both parties, neither one have done anything but take care of themselves, heck as far as I can tell they are the same thing. I don't claim any party as that IMO is limiting myself to one kind of insanity or another..


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> What I'm saying is that when democrats take advantage of a situation the same way republicans have done, you object.


I seem to remember both Parties backing the proposals. Do I remember incorrectly?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I seem to remember both Parties backing the proposals. Do I remember incorrectly?


We're having the same conversation in two threads at the same time. I just answered that question in the post at this link.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ng-mental-health-screening-2.html#post6328034


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> So what is your solution? I say we ban violent video games.


Solution? In part, see below, what Truckinguy said. 

I think people need to get involved with their society on both a community and national level and all be prepared to unite and take responsibility for each other. Unfortunately, because of political and ideological divisiveness, I don't see that happening any time in the near future. Violent video games don't cause mental illness, besides which that's a genie that's already been out of the bottle for too long and can't be put back in the bottle. People have been playing death games of one sort or another for thousands of years. It may cause desensitization in the mentally ill as well as those who are not ill but it's not the cause of mental illness.

Guns are just one type of many toys that sick people can use to kill other people. Banning guns or violent videos or other forms of violent entertainment won't address mental illness. If anything, taking those toys away from people would likely exacerbate their agitation which they find release from through violent toys. It is human nature to be violent and to act it out, so if you take away their toys they'll just replace it with something else violent which would probably be even less socially and morally acceptable than the violent toys that people have now. 

People need to stop brushing mental illness under the rug, stop pretending it's not on the increase and come to some consensus about _why_ it's on the increase and then address the causes of the illness by institution of preventative measures for both the causes and the illnesses.

Personally I think everyone who owns or wants to own guns should be required to pass a full mental competency evaluation every 10 years. Confident, stable people who don't doubt their sanity should be happy to undergo such evaluations while those who are unstable or who doubt their mental stability will be the ones who are most resistant to such evaluations.




Truckinguy said:


> I understand the concept of preserving your rights to bear arms in the context of keeping the government honest but, quite frankly, America will fail because of social deterioration and politics before any black helicopters come and take you away to concentration camps. Unless the citizens plan on charging the white house and forcibly removing the government it would be more effective to put a little less emphasis on guns and a lot more effort into getting involved in the community and politics and changing things from a grassroots level.The Ghandi example is a valid one showing that it's possible for change to happen peacefully but it requires people to get involved and sacrifice a lot of themselves to get it it done. Unfortunately, the US government (and others but this conversation is about the US) and big business and special interest groups are doing it themselves by nibbling away on the edges of your freedoms and you have to bite back by involving yourselves in society rather than hunkering down in bunkers with preps behind a wall of guns.
> 
> Those guns did not pick themselves up, drive themselves to the school and start spitting bullets around on their own. Guns are not the problem and they are not the solution, they are a symptom. Arming everyone in the US will not solve the underlying problems any more than taking all the guns away.
> 
> I"m not for or against gun control but it seems that people get so entrenched in arguing the point that the real problems get pushed aside.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Remove the guns and people will still be mad.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> The largest killer of kids by guns is the government. Waco=90 kids. Government sharpshooter Lon Hurushi(sp) shot an un-armed Vicky Weaver AND her baby at Ruby ridge. They also killed thousands of innocent woman and childeren=collateral damage in wars.
> 
> How many innocent folks have cops killed?
> 
> ...



Are you saying that all those kids at Waco died from gunshots?:umno:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Are you saying that all those kids at Waco died from gunshots?:umno:


Nope! I didn't say that at all did I? I said they were killed by the government didn't I? Are you saying that the government didn't kill all those woman and children?

Eta: I re-read my original post. Yea, it looks like that's what I was saying. I meant it to be the government kills many more kids and gets away with it because it's done under the color of authority!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Solution? In part, see below, what Truckinguy said.
> 
> I think people need to get involved with their society on both a community and national level and all be prepared to unite and take responsibility for each other. Unfortunately, because of political and ideological divisiveness, I don't see that happening any time in the near future. Violent video games don't cause mental illness, besides which that's a genie that's already been out of the bottle for too long and can't be put back in the bottle. People have been playing death games of one sort or another for thousands of years. It may cause desensitization in the mentally ill as well as those who are not ill but it's not the cause of mental illness.
> 
> ...


Yep. Yep. and yep. 





naturelover said:


> Personally I think everyone who owns or wants to own guns should be required to pass a full mental competency evaluation every 10 years. Confident, stable people who don't doubt their sanity should be happy to undergo such evaluations while those who are unstable or who doubt their mental stability will be the ones who are most resistant to such evaluations.


awwwww, and you were doin soooooo good up to here! I was just so proud of you... making sense, logical thinking and every thing. Then you go and put restrictions and restraints on the competent law abiding citizens... hoops that must be jumped through in order to claim their basic God given right. How about just locking up the criminally insane... or put them out of their misery, and let the good people go on about their business?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wanda said:


> Are you saying that all those kids at Waco died from gunshots?:umno:


Naw, I think most of them died from the fires set with incendiary rounds fired at the buildings they were in.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw, I think most of them died from the fires set with incendiary rounds fired at the buildings they were in.


Yes, that's what killed most of them. The government still killed them, woman and children. Sicko's!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, that's what killed most of them. The government still killed them, woman and children. Sicko's!


It was pretty obvious that Reno was pretty sick.... ordering up a weeks worth of torture before the assault... I cant imagine the pain those poor people must have gone through with Nancy Sinatra's "These boots" blaring away night and day.  I am thinking the eventual killings were actually an act of mercy.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ... hoops that must be jumped through in order to claim their basic God given right.


I think you should leave God out of it. God didn't create guns and God never gave humans any rights. There is absolutely no such thing as a God given right and God doesn't care if humans have to jump through hoops. _Rights_ are a human concept created by humans for humans. Trying to bring God into the discussion is just the typical human failure of using God as a scapegoat for humans not accepting responsibility for the problems that humans create for themselves.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> awwwww, and you were doin soooooo good up to here! I was just so proud of you... making sense, logical thinking and every thing. Then you go and put restrictions and restraints on the competent law abiding citizens... hoops that must be jumped through in order to claim their basic God given right. How about just locking up the criminally insane... or put them out of their misery, and let the good people go on about their business?


I don't see this as a mental health regulation problem, since he didn't obtain the firearms from a gun store. The problem was easy access to his mother's firearms.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I think you should leave God out of it. God didn't create guns and God never gave humans any rights. There is absolutely no such thing as a God given right and God doesn't care if humans have to jump through hoops. _Rights_ are a human concept created by humans for humans. Trying to bring God into the discussion is just the typical human failure of using God as a scapegoat for humans not accepting responsibility for the problems that humans create for themselves.
> 
> .


So I give myself the right to protect my family to the best of my ability and require the latest and best weapons to do just that since the government can't possibly protect me and mine! Sounds good to me!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't see this as a mental health regulation problem, since he didn't obtain the firearms from a gun store. The problem was easy access to his mother's firearms.


While this is true, he did steal them, so he killed with stolen guns. How do you know that the guns used were easily accessed? Where were they kept?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think you should leave *God *out of it. *God *didn't create guns and God never gave humans any rights. There is absolutely no such thing as a* God* given right and *God* doesn't care if humans have to jump through hoops.
> _Rights_ are a human concept created by humans for humans. Trying to bring God into the discussion is just the typical human failure of using God as a scapegoat for humans not accepting responsibility for the problems that humans create for themselves.


http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/



> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of *Nature's God *entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*, that among these are *Life,* Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


We have a right to LIFE
With that right comes the right to PROTECT that life, and logically you cannot be denied the means to do so

It's a long standing principle in common law, and one on which THIS country was founded

It doesn't matter if *you* think it comes from* God*, but it DOES exist


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't see this as a mental health regulation problem, since he didn't obtain the firearms from a gun store. The problem was *easy access* to his mother's firearms


Your making assumptions.
You don't* know* how he got the guns


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

naturelover said:


> I think you should leave God out of it. God didn't create guns and God never gave humans any rights. There is absolutely no such thing as a God given right and God doesn't care if humans have to jump through hoops. _Rights_ are a human concept created by humans for humans. Trying to bring God into the discussion is just the typical human failure of using God as a scapegoat for humans not accepting responsibility for the problems that humans create for themselves.
> 
> .


 Okay, you want to leave god out of it. Then lets just call it a human right. Yes a RIGHT, to defend ourselves from harm. If it isn't important to defend ourselves or from "bad" things, then the killing of these children means absolutely nothing. No different then a wolf killing a deer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I think you should leave God out of it. God didn't create guns and God never gave humans any rights. There is absolutely no such thing as a God given right and God doesn't care if humans have to jump through hoops. _Rights_ are a human concept created by humans for humans. Trying to bring God into the discussion is just the typical human failure of using God as a scapegoat for humans not accepting responsibility for the problems that humans create for themselves.
> 
> .


I was just going by what the founders (the guys that wrote our constitution) said about it. If you don't believe them that's fine too. Me? I think we have them. Don't really care if they came in a box of Cracker Jacks, I will fight to keep mine.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't see this as a mental health regulation problem, since he didn't obtain the firearms from a gun store. The problem was easy access to his mother's firearms.


Oddly enough I have pretty easy access to guns myself, at least four pistols two rifles and a shotgun, not counting my black powder gear. I have never shot any lil kids maybe coz my brain is still semi functional and I know their mothers would fuss. Or maybe coz I am not a nutcase.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oddly enough I have pretty easy access to guns myself, at least four pistols two rifles and a shotgun, not counting my black powder gear. I have never shot any lil kids maybe coz my brain is still semi functional and I know their mothers would fuss. Or maybe coz I am not a nutcase.


Right









Heres a few that are or were,a NUT CASE that is.Should be no trouble picking any of them out of a line up.There's something about their eyes.Could it be demon possession? Don't take our guns Obama.We are gunna need them if we ever come in contact with any of these creeps, or others just like them.The Principal and the teachers needed theirs, but were forbidden to bring them to school.

















































Folks,hell is gunna be full of Satan's angels, and evil beings just like these.Its not hard to imagine what god these kind worship.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> There's something about their eyes.


Eddie, eyes are the windows to the soul.

Here's one more. Anders Breivik, the guy that killed all those people in Norway.











.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Right
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ephesians 6:12
That's what I have been saying all along.....


----------



## farmmom (Jan 4, 2009)

As to the accusations that the mother made the guns too accessible, it is possible they were in a gun safe. I have personally seen how easy it is to break into gun safes, especially the smaller ones. Sometimes all it takes is a blow to a corner and they pop open. This was demonstrated in a gun safety course I took.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

farmmom said:


> As to the accusations that the mother made the guns too accessible, it is possible they were in a gun safe. I have personally seen how easy it is to break into gun safes, especially the smaller ones. Sometimes all it takes is a blow to a corner and they pop open. This was demonstrated in a gun safety course I took.


He was a 20 year old man, not a 7 year old boy.

Maybe up to this point, he had never shown signs of 'terminal' violence? 
So his mother would have never thought: OMGosh I need to lock up and hide all the guns.

Every knife in my kitchen is accessible. 
Chainsaw? Totally accessible.
The people who live in this home KNOW where the gun is, making it, accessible.
The hammers, hacksaws, tire irons, hatchets, axes, etc, are all, accessible.

I have not seen a news report / article that shows this kids medical records proving what cocktail of drugs he was 'on'.
I have not seen a news report / article that shows what the kids shrink had to say about it.

All I can find are opinions and speculations.
Does anyone know where to find the 'hard facts'?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It will be interesting to see how the media treats this case compared to the Martin Zimmerman case. So far in the Martin Zimmerman case we've seen almost everything made public except for the stuff the Martin's attorney, Crump, has resisted providing and the test of the KelTec which was used to kill Martin.

I don't think the media has any motivation to explore the mental health aspects of the case. The kid's medical records are protected by law. Maybe not after death. We'll have to wait and see.

Given the media's focus on the firearms, I have doubts they'll explore other aspects


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

Why would a woman living in this supposedly ideal and wonderful town feel she needed 5 guns, including assault weapons? Why is no one asking this question?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Marshloft said:


> I have a much better idea.
> How bout not having a discussion that involves *OUR* constitutional rights with some one* NOT* from the *USA*? :cowboy:


Sometimes a fresh set of eyes from another perspective can shed a different light on the situation. Just like breeding animals, sometimes fresh blood needs to be introduced to the group or the group starts showing some more and more of their bad traits, which seems to be happening here. It's always the same old argument, some people call for gun control and then the other side counters with " Guns don't kill people, people kill people and you can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands".

It's the same old rhetoric every time and it gets old real fast. If your right to bear arms is to protect you from your government if it goes bad, fix your government. Get involved and make real changes toward what you want your government to be. Make social changes to make society a better place, start teaching kids at a young age that too much debt is bad which would reduce their reliance on the banking system, teach them to eat healthy and be active which would reduce their dependance on health care and teach them to treat others the way they would like to be treated which would solve most of societies problems. 

This has nothing to do with politicians from the left or the right who, in the end, are mostly out for themselves. It has nothing to do with religion, which creates many of it's own problems. It's abut basic humanity and the way we conduct ourselves. We are not inherently evil but we are capable of great and terrible things. We have a good wolf and an evil wolf inside us and the one that wins is the one we feed.

Those who are steering your government in a direction that your not happy with are doing so because they are involved and they are loud. BE LOUDER! Refusing to vote and otherwise not being involved is not an option. A government left unattended will soon be taken and used by those who don't have the country's best interests in mind. It's kind of like leaving your car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in it and then complaining that someone stole it. Like a car, a government needs constant maintenance and things fixed when they break. You can't complain about the direction the car is going if you're not participating in the maintenance, repair and operation of the car.



> Given the media's focus on the firearms, I have doubts they'll explore other aspects


Gun control and gun rights are smokescreens that are covering up the real problems and are likely being used as a distraction while special interest groups further their agendas on other fronts. It's an easy distraction too and doesn't even need an event like this to stir the pot, just drop a hint here and there about increasing or decreasing gun controls and one side or the other will go off on a rampage which will set the other side off and the special interest groups or politicians will smile to themselves and go about their business while everyone's off arguing in the corner.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

snoozy said:


> Why would a woman living in this supposedly ideal and wonderful town feel she needed 5 guns, including assault weapons? Why is no one asking this question?


Maybe because it isn't anyone's business.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Personally I think everyone who owns or wants to own guns should be required to pass a full mental competency evaluation every 10 years. Confident, stable people who don't doubt their sanity should be happy to undergo such evaluations while those who are unstable or who doubt their mental stability will be the ones who are most resistant to such evaluations.


Who Evaluates the evaluators?



naturelover said:


> People need to stop brushing mental illness under the rug, stop pretending it's not on the increase and come to some consensus about _why_ it's on the increase and then address the causes of the illness by institution of preventative measures for both the causes and the illnesses.


YES POST OF THE WEEK<MONTH < YEAR!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

snoozy said:


> Why would a woman living in this supposedly ideal and wonderful town feel she needed 5 guns, including assault weapons? Why is no one asking this question?


Supposedly the woman grew up on a farm in New England. she was probably familiar with firearms from an early age. We don't know much about her life. We don't know what turned her into a firearms aficionado. She obviously practiced. She also was concerned about where the country was going based on her reported prepping.

I don't see anything wrong with what she did other than having a rifle that is supposedly banned by the state of CT. That warrants an investigation. this seems to be a forest for the trees situation. :Censored: always happens to other people. She apparently never saw this coming. 

The media and political focus on ugly, evil firearms may override the real issue of the kid's mental health. There's probably one or more of these kids in every school in the country. The focus should be on examining how the system failed the kid.

Anyone around here with five guns, or less, would probably be pitied if the fact got out.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

snoozy said:


> Why would a woman living in this supposedly ideal and wonderful town feel she needed 5 guns, including assault weapons? Why is no one asking this question?


 I have 10 or more guns 3 of them are what you could call Assault Weapons because I got them from Military Surplus. How many kids have I killed 0. How many will I kill in the future with a gun 0. What will happen if somebody steals a gun and commits a crime? That is that persons responsibly not mine. What would you do if somebody steals you car and has a wreck with a school bus? It is the same thing.


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

The entire situation is terribly sad and I feel absolutely sick for the families that lost loved ones. IMO, The problem isn't guns...it is a culture that celebrates violence, revenge, retribution, etc. combined with unstable minds.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't see this as a mental health regulation problem, since he didn't obtain the firearms from a gun store. The problem was easy access to his mother's firearms.


Are you saying it's OK if he kills people with something other than a firearm?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Are you saying it's OK if he kills people with something other than a firearm?


Pretty outrageous strawman, don't you think?

We don't happen to have a strawman rule here at HT, but at some forums you can be banned for doing it. The reason is obvious, it can get out of hand with pointless and outrageous allegations that aren't even remotely true.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Pretty outrageous strawman, don't you think?
> 
> We don't happen to have a strawman rule here at HT, but at some forums you can be banned for doing it. The reason is obvious, it can get out of hand with pointless and outrageous allegations that aren't even remotely true.


So can your post. Everytime I look at your post I cant find a reasion because of all the straw.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

snoozy said:


> Why would a woman living in this supposedly ideal and wonderful town feel she needed 5 guns, including assault weapons?* Why is no one asking this question*?


Because it's a ridiculous question to ask.

Why does BO *need* guys with machine guns to follow him and HIS CHILDREN everywhere they go?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We don't happen to have a *strawman rule* here at HT, but at some forums you can be banned for doing it


LOL
Lucky for you we don't have that, huh?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Pretty outrageous strawman, don't you think?
> 
> We don't happen to have a strawman rule here at HT, but at some forums you can be banned for doing it. The reason is obvious, it can get out of hand with pointless and outrageous allegations that aren't even remotely true.


I think it's outrageous when someone ignores the obvious socialization issues and goes straight to firearms with a designation that's meant for media hype.We don't know how he accessed his mother's firearms. We don't know how she got possession of a firearm banned by CT law and also NJ, BTW.

We do know the kid attempted to buy a firearm from a dealer previously and couldn't. Obviously plan A didn't work. Would he have killed his mother if it had? There's been some reports stating he got into an argument at the school previously.. What was that about? He seems to be a little old to going back to elementary school. Around here, that would have gotten him a visit from law enforcement. Why didn't that happen there?

You can't pick and choose your facts. There's been obvious socialization issues with mass and serial killers. Did Dalhlmer use a firearm to kill his victims? Get the point? 

We need to focus on what's going on with the sociopaths and psychopaths upstairs. Banning so-called assault weapons won't stop mass murder. 

In WWI the Germans didn't object to us killing their soldiers with a .30-06. They did complain about us using shotguns. I'm sure Newtown families would think me nuts for thinking it could have been worse. It could have been much, much worse. He could have killed everyone in that school easily if he knew what he was doing. We're lucky he didn't.

Any child's death by a firearm is a tragedy. Ignoring facts when we have an opportunity to address the real issues just sets the stage for continuing incidents. I won't have that on my conscience. I called my congressional officials. I made the case for allowing school teachers and administrators to defend themselves and their students. In a society that hasn't addressed mental health issues adequately, that's the least we can do.

Banning so-called assault rifles does nothing to prevent more Newtowns.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> Right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just a thought regarding the destination of these people's souls...God is the one who decides, or knows, etc. Mental illness which I'm sure at least some of them have, is a disease of the mind. We don't condemn people for having cancer or disease of other parts of the body(though I know some Christians think disease is a manifestation or "payback" for sin on one's life...). Of course the fallout of mental illness is terrible. These people were also born with a soul, they were created by God as a individual with wonderful potential, just like the rest of us. They were once a child with hopes and dreams and laughing. I have worked with kids with that cold look--I felt the fear of something not right, I would say it's like their soul is gone in an attempt to describe it. 

And that gone soul, in my mind, is with God--perhaps like we imagine a baby goes straight to heaven because its not old enough to decide. The body remains and can do some terrible things, which we must deal with, but to say/assume that person will rot in hell is not ours to say.

When I think of "satans angels", I think of regular people who are "just fine"--they conciously judge and condemn people and in general work to destroy that inner soul-child that God created in folks. Plenty of those people in church, and a lot of them are held up as saints because they are good at keeping and enforcing the rules.

Nobody wishes to be mentally ill.


----------

