Today's Tragedy

^^^ Called it when I first heard of this. Pathetic, like banning assault weapons is going to stop criminals from obtainning assault weapons!
 
BobbyG said:
I've been around for a good long time and I can tell you these mass shootings are new to America and only began 25 years or so ago. I feel much of what we're witnessing today can be squarely shouldered on the media..

In the back of our minds there's not one of us would like noting better than to understand why Adam Lanza planned and executed such a diabolical chain of events that will never be forgotten.

It's clear that Adam had some serious issues that either went undetected or perhaps a genetic flaw that predisposed him to this type of behavior. Teenagers thrive on attention and what better way to see yourself then on National Television.

Each time a shooting like this takes place the reporting media is like a sharks feeding frenzy. The sensationalize every aspect of the event and many times it's little more than shear speculation and often times wrong.

I feel the way the media reports these events had a lot to do with future shooting or evens of mass carnage. The media glorifies these shooters reporting their name, age, where they live, photos, and everything they can come up with. "Everyone will know me"

Of the last 3 shootings can you remember just 1 of the victims names? I can't....all I remember is:

Adam Lanza
Cho Seung-Hui
Dylan Klebold & Eric Harris

Perhaps if the media reported an incident focusing only on the victims rather than immortalizing and glorifying the killer there might just be fewer of these because there would be no spotlights for them, only the victims and sorrow for those that died....
Click to expand...

Once again Bobby, spot on. I can assure everyone that the media runs out of facts about 30 seconds in on one of their breathless 24/7 news beatings when something like this happens. They have a lot of air to fill so they drum up some "experts" to guess at what happened and then they make the rest up. It does not matter which organization, they all do it and I have seen this first hand.

There is no suspect outstanding so there is no reason to share the investigation real time with the media. I've seen the State Police spokesman doing press conferences. This is a top notch professional organization and they prove that by the way they handle the jackals. They even assigned Troopers to every family to give them the information personally and keep media away from them. Class acts under the worst circumstances.

I, for one, do not need to see some good haired bleached tooth idiot shove a microphone in the family's face and ask how they feel. Sadly, I have a pretty good idea how they feel and that is not news, it's perverted grief mongering.

The previous argument about "assault weapons" and the purpose of such a weapon is not valid. The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia not for sporting purposes, but to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical like the King was. That's how we got independence from England in the first place. Self-defense is a human right and I won't apologize for it or buy in to the notion that only target guns are "legitimate". Some people can lawfully be killed and quite frankly, they need it.
 
Rayaz said:
The previous argument about "assault weapons" and the purpose of such a weapon is not valid. The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia not for sporting purposes, but to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical like the King was. That's how we got independence from England in the first place. Self-defense is a human right and I won't apologize for it or buy in to the notion that only target guns are "legitimate". Some people can lawfully be killed and quite frankly, they need it.
Click to expand...

Our "tyrannical" government has tanks and nuclear weapons, good luck against that with your AR-15. Oh, and a PGM coming from a Predator is just subsonic, so you won't hear it coming to shoot with your AK-47, either. Just saying. You know, if my kid pokes my other kid in the eye with a fork, I can sit him down and give him a long talk about how he shouldn't poke his brother in the eye with a fork, and maybe that will work. Or I could throw him out the back door and see how he does in the snow. Or I could put the forks in a drawer he can't reach, so the only time he gets a fork in his hand is when we're eating and I can keep an eye on him. Just saying.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Or I could put the forks in a drawer he can't reach, so the only time he gets a fork in his hand is when we're eating and I can keep an eye on him. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Ya, i know many people that have tried that, the kid forgot about the fork, and would go get a rock, or sand, or a screwdriver or any other thing they could find to put in the other kids eye. Seems the kids that are determined to stab other kids in the eye always find a way.
Just sayin.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Ya, i know many people that have tried that, the kid forgot about the fork, and would go get a rock, or sand, or a screwdriver or any other thing they could find to put in the other kids eye. Seems the kids that are determined to stab other kids in the eye always find a way.
Just sayin.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should say that, I had to put that one up for adoption after he got into my tool box. My wife argued I should get rid of my tool box, but I told her you can't blame the screwdriver just because the kid got mostly her genes.
 
just heard there was a shooting in texas at a movie theater and yesterday here locally at fashion island newport beach...
 
This violence on such a horrific scale against innocent victims (who can be more innocent than six year old kids) is the result of pathological disorders. However, these disorders are in turn the result of the decay in our society. Society itself, its values, its very way of life is to blame, not guns themselves.

Like Bobby G, I am an old timer too and I remember another Lanza, Mario Lanza, who was famous in the '50s for his great tenor voice. About this time of the year back then the airwaves were full of his "Be My Love", which topped the pop charts for weeks on end. Quite a feat for a classical singer of the operatic variety. Beautiful music, beautiful voice which even to non-opera goers comforted the heart, beautiful words to the song that inspired us and made us understand just what the meaning of "Be My Love" actually meant to Americans. During the period Mario Lanza sang there were virtually no gun control laws and virtually no mass killings of children. It is all a result of society's failure through its acceptance and glorification of violence in everything from sports to video games. This frustration is seen in the casual attitude given to the most horrific decline in our society of all, the decline of the family structure.

Today, it is not Mario Lanza the great singer who is famous but another Lanza, Adam Lanza, the great monster. Where Mario's "Be My Love" had uplifting lyrics instructing us on the virtues of love, here is what the number one song of today (Die Young) teaches us: "Looking for some trouble tonight (yeah)
Take my hand, I'll show you the wild side
Like it's the last night of our lives (uh huh)
We'll keep dancing 'til we die
We're gonna die young
We're gonna die young
Let's make the most of the night like we're gonna die young".

And indeed, Adam Lanza did die young.

Aren't those lyrics just marvelous? And it is "sung" (if you want to call it that) not by a handsome young tenor idol like Mario Lanza, but by some kind of creature called "Kesha", or something like that, who runs around with rings in her nose.

Do you see the difference? Do you see what Adam Lanza was surrounded with? His decline is only a more vivid reflection of our society's decline. From Mario Lanza to Adam Lanza - from a great America to a corrupt America - from the days of honor and glory to the days of dishonor and shame. Let's hope the old saying of Moses is indeed correct, "And this too shall pass".
 
:iagree:

I'd take those days over these any day of the week.....
 
Put me down for whatever had the best chance of keeping those children alive. If it's stricter gun control, fine. If it is something else, that's fine too. My thought is that it is a combination of responses may have had an effect.

Please note that I am not looking for a ban on the ownership of firearms. I would just like to see some controls that would have the appropriate effect on who can own them. I read an interesting Op Ed piece where the writer stated that based on her analysis of past crimes that were similar in nature, not all perpetrators have the mentality that, come hell or high water, they will do anything they can to get their hands on assault guns. Some can be discouraged, and after what happened on Friday, then maybe I'm all for that.

Just a thought...
 
I agree with the statement that guns didn't kill, but a unstable, mentally ill person did. However, why would anyone in the US need a automatic assault riffle? The second ammendment needs to be changed, we no longer need to arm ourselves with a musket to defend against the British. Ak-47's, Semi automatics are necessary? Think about what the outcome might have been like if we were limited to single shot shotguns or 6 round revolvers, not 9MM with extended 30 shot clips. My $.02
 
NYCLR3 said:
I agree with the statement that guns didn't kill, but a unstable, mentally ill person did. However, why would anyone in the US need a automatic assault riffle? The second ammendment needs to be changed, we no longer need to arm ourselves with a musket to defend against the British. Ak-47's, Semi automatics are necessary? Think about what the outcome might have been like if we were limited to single shot shotguns or 6 round revolvers, not 9MM with extended 30 shot clips. My $.02
Click to expand...
I know many people that target shoot and use their AR15's in 3 gun competitions. They are specifically designed for competition shooting, which is a sport for fun. An AR15, for most people, isn't "needed", just like a nice and detailed car is not needed. I think we need to focus on the mentally ill killer, as he could have used any method to mass kill. I don't think denying some the right to own someting because it's not "necessary" is the way to go. My $.02.
 
Yes, but is ability to participate in such competitions worth the amount of death caused by assault rifles in the wrong hands?
 
KenR said:
Yes, but is ability to participate in such competitions worth the amount of death caused by assault rifles in the wrong hands?
Click to expand...
Participating in an sport or even had nothing to do with those killings. If the murder would have stolen a Toyota and killed a bunch of people with it, nobody would be wanting to limit the sale of Toyota's.
Where does it end. The law abiding citizens that own such firearms already know full well they will never change the minds of those that don't agree them owning certain firearms.
I'm gonna leave it at that.
 
Understood. But the intended uses of a Toyota are very different from the intended uses of a gun. So I think that there is a bit of apples and oranges to the comparison.

As I stated before, I'm not looking to ban guns. I'm looking for a solution to the problem of innocent people getting killed in such a manner, whatever the solution may be.
 
I got this from the open carry forum:

According to the NHTSA statistics from printed page 32 (pdf page 48) of
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811402EE.pdf

Persons killed in “Alcohol Related” and “Alcohol Impaired” accidents
Year BAC > .01 g/dL BAC > .08 g/dL
2005 15,985 13,582
2006 15,970 13,491
2007 15,534 13,041
2008 13,826 11,711
2009 12,744 10,839

--------------------------
According to the FBI CIUS (Crime in the US) 2009 data taken from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_08.html

Persons Murdered by Firearms:
2005 10,158
2006 10,225
2007 10,129
2008 9,528
2009 9,146

As you can see more deaths lay at the hands of alcohol related vehicle accidents than firearms. Why is there no one talking about an alcohol ban? Drinking Alcohol is not a right. The ability to bear arms IS a right! I agree that their should be legistlation for qualified indivuduals only, to purchase firearms. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not going to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again.
 
A-train said:
I got this from the open carry forum:

According to the NHTSA statistics from printed page 32 (pdf page 48) of
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811402EE.pdf

Persons killed in “Alcohol Related” and “Alcohol Impaired” accidents
Year BAC > .01 g/dL BAC > .08 g/dL
2005 15,985 13,582
2006 15,970 13,491
2007 15,534 13,041
2008 13,826 11,711
2009 12,744 10,839

--------------------------
According to the FBI CIUS (Crime in the US) 2009 data taken from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/off...rtable_08.html

Persons Murdered by Firearms:
2005 10,158
2006 10,225
2007 10,129
2008 9,528
2009 9,146

As you can see more deaths lay at the hands of alcohol related vehicle accidents than firearms. Why is there no one talking about an alcohol ban? Drinking Alcohol is not a right. The ability to bear arms IS a right! I agree that their should be legistlation for qualified indivuduals only, to purchase firearms. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not going to stop this kind of tragedy from happening again.
Click to expand...

Ban alcohol? As in, Prohibition? Most of us know how well that turned out. Americans yearn for Freedom; that's what this country was founded on. Removing those freedoms never sits well with us and always leads to senseless killing. Take the 'War on Drugs' for instance. Who is winning that war? It's definitely not the American people. Is it even stopping ANYONE from getting the drugs they want? If anyone thinks the answer to that is 'yes,' they're dilusional. And if anyone thinks banning any type of firearm will keep people from accessing them, they'll be in that same dilusional camp.

"There is absolutely never a reason to give up one ounce of freedom for the sake of security. It won't work." - Dr. Ron Paul
 
Another thing that concerns me is all the talk about identifying and doing something about troubled, frustrated individuals who demonstrate anger management issues and rage. All it is is indeed just a bunch of talk and here is an example that is very close to home for me.

My brother lost his family, business and money. He is frustrated beyond belief and displays terrible road rage and explodes at me and others without provocation. I finally had to get his lawyer to talk him into going to a doctor for help. The lawyer said my brother did not have funds to pay for the psychiatrist so I told him I would pay for two, fact finding visits. Hopefully the doctor could then determine the problem and have some idea what would be needed for treatment going forward. My brother refused to sign a release of medical information so when I contacted the doctor to see what happened the doctor told me he was prohibited by law to even acknowledge my brother was his patient. My brother, who did not want to go in the first place, refused to tell me anything about how the visits went. I am paying for something in big dollars and I have no clue whatsoever what I paid for - just a piece of paper showing 3 hours consultation. What am I to do to protect his kids he sees twice a week, my elderly mother, innocent drivers on the road and virtually everyone he comes in contact with?

They can talk about identifying possible troubled people but the system in which that has to work leaves much to be desired. I can see the need for patient rights but when violence and rage are the issue there has to be some way doctors can tell the family if they or someone else is at risk before a tragedy happens. As it is now, all that valuable information can not leave the room. Sometimes the law can be its own worse enemy.
 
KenR said:
Understood. But the intended uses of a Toyota are very different from the intended uses of a gun. S
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part were I stated that most people I know bought firearms for competitions, so the intended use of that firearms was to compete, and nothing more. Someone saying that the intent of these purpose built firearms is anything but what the owner had intended, to compete, would be giving false information.

If you use a toyota to mow down a crowd of people, it's considered a deadly weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top