Friday, December 14, 2012

This Is What He Used



Because he could.

26 comments:

Olevet69 said...

This will stir 'em up. I believe the NRA to be a terrorist organization that promotes unchecked weapons proliferation to assuage a presumed threat to the second amendment.

Anonymous said...

It does not matter what he used. He is responsible, not an inanimate object. He probably drove there in some kind of car, wore some kind o clothes, and did not take some kind of medication. None of these were at fault.

If you want to make schools safer, arm teachers.

Opoib said...

JW be sure ot have your facts straigth.

The gunman drove to the school in his mother’s car, the second official said. Three guns were found — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car.

From this story it doesn't look a semi auto rifle was used at all .

Anonymous said...

He didn't need a gun. This happened in China on the same day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/14/chinese-children-knife-primary-school

Anonymous said...

They're dangerous people, not dangerous weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Brushfire said...

The children were not slaughtered by cars, clothes or medicine. They were slaughtered by a man wielding a weapon specifically designed to kill people.

Brushfire said...

"If you want to make schools safer, arm teachers." The guns used to murder those children did belong to a teacher. Imagine keeping loaded weapons easily available in schools. How can you make them accessible in an emergency without making them easy to steal? How will you prevent friendly fire accidents when even well-trained professionals make mistakes so frequently? How can first responders figure out who the bad guy is, if most of the adults are firing weapons when they arrive? In reality a pepper spray can reach 20 feet and certainly would have disarmed the man instantly. That would be much safer than allowing a bunch of George Zimmerman type idiots firing in panic into the crowd. crowd

brushfire said...

anon 6:15- All of the Chinese children will go home alive to their parents. Not so in Connecticut.

Henery said...

"Ok, hmm. If, as some people argue, no amount of regulations on gun ownership will address our problems with gun violence because what we have is a moral/spiritual problem, then why do the same people making that argument work constantly to put legal restrictions and stringent regulations (including outright bans) on abortion?"

I wish I'd said that, but I didn't. It's an excellent question.

Anonymous said...

Because abortion is also the murder of a child.

George Zimmerman was only protecting himself until a court of law says differently. Your prejudice is showing.

Liberal POV said...

Anonymous

The China incident does have some similarities, the emerging society in China and the American Society is becoming more and more driven by greed, under medicated or over medicated mentally ill in both societies are a problem.
Some things are clear no family needs multiple efficient killing machines with 30-100 round clips and huge qualities of ammo. Homes with family members with a history of mental illness sure don't need these weapons available for access.
One of the very first red flags for mental illness is when a citizen believes he or she needs an assault style weapon with a 30-100 round clip and huge qualities of ammo. The other would be mental patient is the wannabe "Dirty Harry" syndrome who want to blow the bad guy away like the fictional character "Dirty Harry" blows away the villain with a huge hand gun. This gives the male unsure of his masculinity a boost to his self esteem and a little extra package to carry. Most of you know at least one of these guys.

Anonymous said...

Every family needs efficient killing machines with 30-100 round clips and huge qualities of ammo so they can protect themselves from people that would violate their civil rights, including the 2nd. Amendment.

Opoib said...

LPOV, Dirty Harry carried a revolver not a 30 to 100 round magazine. The two pistols used in this tragedy did not have 3) or 100 round magazines.

Anonymous said...

Fuck the NRA and the little prick people that need big assault weapons to be a man.

Not Really said...

I'm just going to quote William Saletan. Excellent article, makes the simple point that semi-automatic weapons are very good for killing lots of people in a short period of time (and not much else, really):

"Look up the worst school massacres in history, and you’ll see the pattern. Madmen are everywhere. They strike without regard to gun laws, mental health care, or the national rate of churchgoing. They’ve slaughtered children in every country you’d think might have been spared: Scotland, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Finland, Japan. They’ve falsified every pet political theory about what kind of culture or medical system or firearms legislation prevents mass murder.

But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics. If you stick a knife in your first victim, it takes time to move on to your second. You might need two stabs or more to finish off the first kid. By then, the other kids have begun to flee. Soon, the cops will be here. How much time do you have? At some point, it’s time to off yourself. And all you managed to kill were two lousy kids because the only weapon you had was a kitchen knife.

Google “knife control” and you’ll find legions of gun-control skeptics comparing U.S. firearm attacks to Chinese knife attacks. In the past two years, there’s been an epidemic of knife attacks on Chinese schools. Some of them show up on Wikipedia’s list of school massacres. But none crack the top 10 because the body counts never rise above single digits. It’s just too hard to kill that many people, even little kids, with a knife.

Guns do more damage. Look down the list and you’ll see gun after gun after gun. But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing. High-capacity magazines are another common factor. All these patterns converge on a common lesson: Speed kills. Madness pulls the trigger, but the rate of fire drives the body count."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

Anonymous said...

Prescription medicines certainly had a role in this tragedy. These terrible incidents happen too frequently, and too often prescribed drugs were involved.

Doctors write prescriptions for these dangerous mind-altering drugs like they were giving out candy.

And then our society and law enforcement goes after meth, etc.

In my opinion, legal drugs are just as dangerous. 'Ever read the contraindications?

Anonymous said...

This is why you need guns - the murderous liberals and their tyrannical government dreams.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/liberals-call-for-murder-of-nra-president-members-repeal-of-second-amendment/

Not Really said...

Facts ARE important. It has been hard at times to get the facts of this case straight but the CT medical examiner has confirmed that almost all the victims were killed with the semiautomatic rifle:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324481204578181214172789922.html

Maire said...

According to the governor of Connecticut, "He penetrated the building by literally shooting an entrance into the building. That's what an assault weapon can do for you," Gov. Dan Malloy.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/16/latest-updates-connecticut-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1

Liberal POV said...

Opoib

Facts have been difficut to come by but now it's now being reported all of the children were killed by the bushmaster weapon, the gun nuts worship.

Anonymous said...

Not Really, and your point is?

The man killed th victims, not the gun.

Anonymous said...

Since most of the officials, local and federal, including many within the media, have an agenda to push, some of their statements should be seriously questioned.

Not Really said...

Anonymous 11:43 said...

"Not Really, and your point is? The man killed th victims, not the gun."

I'm almost embarrassed to have to clarify this:

1. Crazy people will commit acts of violence not matter what weapons they have access to. You an I likely agree on this. The man who attacked students in China with a knife is a good example.

2. Easy access to semiautomatic weapons allows crazy people to kill LOTS and LOTS of people in a short period of time. If you cannot at least admit that this is a basic fact then you are ignoring reality. This is why there are no fatalities in the knife attack in China, while we have 27 people dead here. In both cases we have sick people determined to cause harm - the difference is in the type of weapons they were able to obtain.

So you have to ask yourself: is it important enough to have easy access to semiautomatic weapons that we must simply live with the occasional slaughter of innocent people that this access makes possible? Or would you consider having some restrictions in place on the sale of such weapons that might help keep them out of the hands of unstable individuals?

Maire said...

Anon 11.43

A few days ago, a man in China invaded a school and began attacking children. Since China has very strict gun laws, all he could use was a knife. He injured 22 young children -- and every single one survived. Yes, the shooter killed the children and adults in CT, but having an assault weapon 1. got him into an otherwise secure building; and 2. allowed him to efficiently slaughter 26 people in a matter of minutes.

Anonymous said...

Government policies are responsible for these tragedies.

If the truth be told, this tyrannical hypocritical government, of both parties, and its policymakers, the social planners, encourage tragedies like this in order to take more power and make law-abiding people give up their means of protecting themselves and their families for the actions of a few warped minds, also on legal drugs. This government wants total control of every citizen.

Please consider the hypocritical, murderous policies of this government. This bipartisan government sends young people overseas, supposedly after a few or just one individual, but does not mind one iota if these actions kill hundreds or thousands of innocents. And many of the innnocent people killed are children.

This government is ultimately responsible. But its officials answer is to take even more power and make law-abiding, peaceful people totally defense against criminal elements in our society and government itself.

Domestically, government brutally kills its own people and, in most cases, there is no retribution and the truth is hidden.

This government is ultimately responsible. But its officials answer is to take even more power and make law-abiding, peaceful people totally defense against criminal elements in our society and government itself.

Always ask the question: Who benefits?

Anonymous said...

So you would violate the civil rights of millions to try to stop one criminal.

Here is a reality check for you. There are guns in this country. There will always be guns in this country even if they are banned. The illegal aliens will just start bring them in with the dope they are smuggling now. This is if your side wins the civil war that would be fought over a gun ban, even a partial one when people get fed up enough

There are mean assed crazy people in this country and nothing you can do would stop them from getting a gun. All it takes is an armed cop hit over the head with baseball bat.

If you want to stop this kind of thing quit making the loosers that do these things famous, allow teachers that have been trained to carry guns like they do in Israel, and fire the teachers that refuse or cannot pass the training.