Sandy hook why?

Horseballs wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Where are you getting that from? Everyone, including the officers on the scene reported a Bushmaster AR-15 was used (hundreds of spent rounds recovered). There was another rifle in the car. He killed himself with the handgun.
I wouldn't give two shits if every non-hunting gun was illegal. I do not fear the British coming to reclaim their colony.

What's a "non-hunting" gun? I've never seen one that couldn't be used to take game. Along the same line, an assault can be mounted with any sort of firearm. Hell, in the days before gunpowder, they used swords and spears. And before the Iron Age, rocks and clubs. Killing is killing. Always has been and always will. The difference today is the electronic culture that teaches you how to do it and rewards the one with the most and quickest kills.

They were all killed with the assault rifle, I heard this from the state police during the Interview. He used a 10mm hand gun to kill himself. The 10 is supposedly a very powerful weapon, and used by game officers in case they run into a polar bear.
The AA12 shotgun was in the trunk, and is considered the most deadly weapon of it's kind. 20-34 round magazine and no recoil, completely stainless construction, 175 meters and in your dead.

Here we go with the gun lobby arguments designed to couple with bizarre paranoia and other mental illnesses. Expect this kind of stuff as reasonable people try to deal with mindlessness in this arena. The Constitutional argument which is silly and disingenuous, the guns don't kill people people do, which is silly and disingenuous, the kill alternatives argument which is silly and disingenuous and many more which are silly and disingenuous. It's not surprising in the rush to obfuscate and lie, the facts would be misstated.

Logic can't be tamed it can only be obfuscated. Fortunately these people are a minority and at some point, whether now or after more tragedy, the majority may finally tell them to go pound sand.

Mostly German wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Where are you getting that from? Everyone, including the officers on the scene reported a Bushmaster AR-15 was used (hundreds of spent rounds recovered). There was another rifle in the car. He killed himself with the handgun.
I wouldn't give two shits if every non-hunting gun was illegal. I do not fear the British coming to reclaim their colony.

What's a "non-hunting" gun? I've never seen one that couldn't be used to take game. Along the same line, an assault can be mounted with any sort of firearm. Hell, in the days before gunpowder, they used swords and spears. And before the Iron Age, rocks and clubs. Killing is killing. Always has been and always will. The difference today is the electronic culture that teaches you how to do it and rewards the one with the most and quickest kills.

Bolt action rifles and shotguns is my initial thought. No shooting sprees possible without semi-auto or huge magazines.

Horseballs wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Where are you getting that from? Everyone, including the officers on the scene reported a Bushmaster AR-15 was used (hundreds of spent rounds recovered). There was another rifle in the car. He killed himself with the handgun.
I wouldn't give two shits if every non-hunting gun was illegal. I do not fear the British coming to reclaim their colony.

What's a "non-hunting" gun? I've never seen one that couldn't be used to take game. Along the same line, an assault can be mounted with any sort of firearm. Hell, in the days before gunpowder, they used swords and spears. And before the Iron Age, rocks and clubs. Killing is killing. Always has been and always will. The difference today is the electronic culture that teaches you how to do it and rewards the one with the most and quickest kills.

Bolt action rifles and shotguns is my initial thought. No shooting sprees possible without semi-auto or huge magazines.

He would have been overrun by the courageous teachers if he was trying to reload a 22 or most hand guns, or a 4-5 round at the most shotgun. Only highly trained individuals are adept at killing these kind of numbers with anything less than an assault weapon.

Mostly German wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I missed the shotgun. Seems to me like the mother enabled the son to murder her and all those kids and teachers. Letting her f*cked up kid use them makes her either insane or irresponsible. So its either not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, as an accessory, on all 26 counts. Sentence already carried out.

Your comments about Mom are a little harsh.

Firstly she was shot in the head whilst she was asleep. Her crime (if indeed she had one) was to have a house full of guns that her son by virtue of living with her also had. Her second problem was she must have assumed her son would never turn those weapons on her.

Maybe if she didnt have any guns he would have killed her anyway, maybe with a knife. What wouldnt have happended is a 10 stone child would have gone on to kill 26 people. He was able to do that only because he had access to high powered weapons.

edgey wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I missed the shotgun. Seems to me like the mother enabled the son to murder her and all those kids and teachers. Letting her f*cked up kid use them makes her either insane or irresponsible. So its either not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, as an accessory, on all 26 counts. Sentence already carried out.

Your comments about Mom are a little harsh.

Firstly she was shot in the head whilst she was asleep. Her crime (if indeed she had one) was to have a house full of guns that her son by virtue of living with her also had. Her second problem was she must have assumed her son would never turn those weapons on her.

Maybe if she didnt have any guns he would have killed her anyway, maybe with a knife. What wouldnt have happended is a 10 stone child would have gone on to kill 26 people. He was able to do that only because he had access to high powered weapons.

Maybe a bit harsh, granted. Definitely would have been better to have the super genius nerdy wanker locked up in a padded cell instead of living alone with Mum and her Arsenal. Years ago I had a sort of similar situation with a younger brother-in-law with emotional problems and a widowed mother who bought her troubled son's love by giving him money to buy pistols and assault rifles and lots of ammo. The kid even managed to get himself a FFL (Federal Firearms License) enabling him to buy and sell fully automatic weapons. Haven't seen him in years but I would not be surprised if he made the international news with a mass slaughter/suicide.

edgey wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I missed the shotgun. Seems to me like the mother enabled the son to murder her and all those kids and teachers. Letting her f*cked up kid use them makes her either insane or irresponsible. So its either not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, as an accessory, on all 26 counts. Sentence already carried out.

Your comments about Mom are a little harsh.

Firstly she was shot in the head whilst she was asleep. Her crime (if indeed she had one) was to have a house full of guns that her son by virtue of living with her also had. Her second problem was she must have assumed her son would never turn those weapons on her.

Maybe if she didnt have any guns he would have killed her anyway, maybe with a knife. What wouldnt have happended is a 10 stone child would have gone on to kill 26 people. He was able to do that only because he had access to high powered weapons.

I agree with Edgey. This kind of thing wouldn't happen without guns. I do disagree with the use of term "high powered" because that really had nothing to do with what happened at the school. Any kind of gun could have been used.

I don't understand the American fascination with guns, gun shows or people who subscribe to Soldier of Fortune. I can understand someone who lives alone in a high crime city owning a gun.

We used to live next door to these kids our age who's dad owned a bunch of guns. He kept them locked up in a glass case. Real smart, huh? Of course, these delinquent kids found the key and would routinely take out the semi-auto handgun, go out to the backyard and fire it into their empty pool. A bullet could have easily bounced off and killed someone. I remember one day one of them pointed the gun at me and said "don't worry, it's empty". No joke. This same kid would also collect nazi stuff and had it all over his room. He was a loner, watched TV all day long and eventually got into drugs. Several years ago I heard he had killed himself. It was sad to hear that a next door neighbor of mine had done that but it didn't surprise me at all. He was the kind of kid you just wanted to stay away from. Around the age of 10, when my brother refused to play with him any longer, the kid actually came over to our house crying and refused to leave. We had to call his parents to come get him out of our house.

So, you see, these kinds of young adult males are all over the country. If they reach the breaking point they're likely to do anything. Without a gun, though, their ability to do much damage is severely limited.

FamousDavis wrote:

edgey wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I missed the shotgun. Seems to me like the mother enabled the son to murder her and all those kids and teachers. Letting her f*cked up kid use them makes her either insane or irresponsible. So its either not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty, as an accessory, on all 26 counts. Sentence already carried out.

Your comments about Mom are a little harsh.

Firstly she was shot in the head whilst she was asleep. Her crime (if indeed she had one) was to have a house full of guns that her son by virtue of living with her also had. Her second problem was she must have assumed her son would never turn those weapons on her.

Maybe if she didnt have any guns he would have killed her anyway, maybe with a knife. What wouldnt have happended is a 10 stone child would have gone on to kill 26 people. He was able to do that only because he had access to high powered weapons.

I agree with Edgey. This kind of thing wouldn't happen without guns. I do disagree with the use of term "high powered" because that really had nothing to do with what happened at the school. Any kind of gun could have been used.

I don't understand the American fascination with guns, gun shows or people who subscribe to Soldier of Fortune. I can understand someone who lives alone in a high crime city owning a gun.

We used to live next door to these kids our age who's dad owned a bunch of guns. He kept them locked up in a glass case. Real smart, huh? Of course, these delinquent kids found the key and would routinely take out the semi-auto handgun, go out to the backyard and fire it into their empty pool. A bullet could have easily bounced off and killed someone. I remember one day one of them pointed the gun at me and said "don't worry, it's empty". No joke. This same kid would also collect nazi stuff and had it all over his room. He was a loner, watched TV all day long and eventually got into drugs. Several years ago I heard he had killed himself. It was sad to hear that a next door neighbor of mine had done that but it didn't surprise me at all. He was the kind of kid you just wanted to stay away from. Around the age of 10, when my brother refused to play with him any longer, the kid actually came over to our house crying and refused to leave. We had to call his parents to come get him out of our house.

So, you see, these kinds of young adult males are all over the country. If they reach the breaking point they're likely to do anything. Without a gun, though, their ability to do much damage is severely limited.

Good point. By high powered i meant guns (low powered weapons are bows, knifes, crossbows, swords etc). My bad

Mostly German wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Mostly German wrote:

Kiwigolfer wrote:

12pierogi wrote:You know as well as I do mongrel that the mother had no viable reason to purchase assault weapons, did you catch the Russian high capacity shotgun the runt had in the trunk, that the mother also had. He left it in the trunk as I'm sure the recoil was enough to knock him over.

It's stupid for anyone other than law enforcement, or maybe ex military or security details to have access to these weapons.
The gun laws need some updates, the Constitution was wrote when guns were a joke, compared to today's modern firearms.
Are fore fathers would be sad, and disturbed if around today. The laws would be changed.

I got a feeling there going to change soon.

I'm no expert on American history but wasn't the constitution also written when large parts of the US were still unsettled and there was a wild west frontier where the level of lawlessness meant it was entirely appropriate to arm yourself in order to protect yourself. Also weren't peoples militia formed to protect against the possibility that the British would attempt to take back it's former colony. Add to that the American Civil War and it seems you have laws that were appropriate in the days when they were drafted but are completely outdated now. Surely all civilised nations have been through these periods and the gun laws have evolved over time to todays laws.

But on top of that the right to own guns is one thing but access to such high powered military style automatic weapons should surely be banned to the general public. There is absolutely no reason that the general public should need these types of weapons in the guise of self defence or for hunting/sport shooting.

The victims were killed with 9mm handguns the shooter brought into the school. He left the rifle in the car. The rifle is in .223 caliber, a round that is less powerful than the typical round used for the hunting of deer and other larger game in the USA. Keep in mind that these "assault rifles" possessed by millions of Yanks are not automatic weapons but semi-autos. That means you have to pull the trigger for each shot instead of just holding it down until your magazine is empty. The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed just as many with a single shot .22 used for target shooting or a shotgun used for small game hunting. Or five gallons of gasoline and a book of matches. Or he could have waited until all the kids were outside at recess in the playground and run them down with his mother's car. Or the kid could have been locked away in an institution with padded walls and a steady supply of tranqs and things would be hunky dory.

Where are you getting that from? Everyone, including the officers on the scene reported a Bushmaster AR-15 was used (hundreds of spent rounds recovered). There was another rifle in the car. He killed himself with the handgun.
I wouldn't give two shits if every non-hunting gun was illegal. I do not fear the British coming to reclaim their colony.

What's a "non-hunting" gun? I've never seen one that couldn't be used to take game. Along the same line, an assault can be mounted with any sort of firearm. Hell, in the days before gunpowder, they used swords and spears. And before the Iron Age, rocks and clubs. Killing is killing. Always has been and always will. The difference today is the electronic culture that teaches you how to do it and rewards the one with the most and quickest kills.

A non hunting gun should be anything over a 5 shot bolt action. If you need a fully auto or semi auto to hunt, take up fishing. My second rifle was a 15 shot semi auto, because as a young kid my mentality was "bigger and more was better". On one trip the bloody thing jammed and emptied 15 shells in a matter of seconds and i had absolutely no control over it. Next day i traded it for a 5 shot bolt action. If a shooter has to pause to put another magazine in after 5 shots, some lives will be saved. If the gun laws are changed, manufacturers stop making, then the challenge becomes how to clean up whats already out there. And that is probably to big a problem for the government to tackle.

Mostly German wrote:

spankdoggie wrote:Demonic intervention. Serious.

Of course. But don't speak it too loudly because the massess will ridicule you.

And deservedly so. Great loving god you have that let's 20 innocent children get gunned down because of some diseased brain that he himself would have created. Now let's all pray for the victims and their families to the same loving being that supposedly watched all this go down. If you believe that, you should be ridiculed because it is not of a sane mind.

FD owned all of you with post 13 in this thread. Short and concise domination.