• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

I would not be surprised if the crap in our processed foods had something to do with it.
One of my coworkers went through a period of time where she was Zinc deficient, & it caused her to act completely out of the norm. To a point where she was almost in a physical altercation with a female 2-3 times her size.
There's so many chemicals & preservatives in food these days, not to mention the genetic modifications in some foods. There's a believed link to gluten & autism. It would make sense if our poor food quality had something to do with why we're seeing higher mental instability than before.
 
This may sound very conspiracy theory, and it is, but I have been reading a lot of posts about LIBOR connections to a lot of the recent shootings and killings.
 
We're all special in our own special ways though there's not a clinical term for those of us who haven't been diagnosed by a clinical professional, yet, so I sense hope here. I know I've chosen not to do that. I'not askin, just sayin. If we were all alike, we'd be Hemidactylus, and a gun weighs more then they do.
 

Attachments

  • nwH_rep.JPG
    nwH_rep.JPG
    29.9 KB · Views: 89
It may have been mentioned before but the way in which these people have chosen to act out is IMHO at least partly MSM related. What I mean is consider the notoriety aspect of it. In years past someone with deeply seeded emotional issues may have just slit their wrists. Thanks to the MSM giving instant global headlines their cries on the way out will be heard by ALL. Had this kid simply committed suicide in the family home it would not have made news outside the second page of the local newspaper that nobody reads anymore. Instead he kills 5 year old kids and gets world news for weeks and knee jerk reaction for societal change from gov.

IMO the MSM is at least in some small part culpable for making this type of exit from society infamously glamorous. It seems like each new version of this has to find a way of out doing the last. Shoot a crowd in public -> shoot a politician -> dress up like a comic villain and kill people at the related movie -> kill innocent children -> ?!?!?!? What is the next escalation? What is the next bigger headline?

Some things, even if wrong, have a twisted sense about them. Even though Tim McVeigh was totally wrong, in his diluted mind he felt he was attacking the gov for their failed handling of Waco. These more recent attacks seem unrelated to the victim and unrelated to the cause of the underlying issues. But rather they are related to the sensationalism of the event itself and the glaring attention granted the perpetrator. As someone mentioned we don’t remember the victim’s names in these events but for sure most know the perpetrators names.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

Couple of interesting facts ...

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.
 
I hate to think that we will send our kids to a place with armed guards, bullet proof glass, and buzz them from area to area. That sounds more like prison than the schools I attended. But that was a different time, I guess. There also weren't fire sprinklers installed and a 1000 other things that protect our children today. And in 1987, people weren't shooting up schools, at least not with any regularity. I agree with Tsst, not a doubt in my mind, these depressed monsters want the fame and notoriety. As much as I *want* to blame the media, they wouldn't show the wall to wall coverage it if didn't get ratings.
 
Chip said:
... As much as I *want* to blame the media, they wouldn't show the wall to wall coverage it if didn't get ratings.
Click to expand...
Very true Chip. The only true blame lies with the individual perpetrating the act. Perhaps I should have said the media were a form of enablers through providing the perp the platform they seek. Of course all of this is just my opinion.
 
IMO, they shouldn't even be allowed to release the names of shooters. I agree with Tsst, 100%, I believe it's all for the notoriety. I know that this seems unrealistic to expect our media to do, and I can't blame the media 100% for the information they share, because clearly people have enough interest to give the media a reason to share names/events, but no one really needs to know that cowards name, except for professionals related to the crime. No one needs to know the information on what took place, either. They seem to map out a "how to" by going over some of these details, and it's just not our business to know.

Of course mental illness is the underlying cause, as well. It has to be. But, I agree that this person would have, in the past, most likely just killed himself in a bathroom or closet, if not for the fact that he could get so much 'fame' by going out as he did. He was making a statement to the public, not to these children. He was just sick enough not to have cared who suffered for it.
 
This was the hot topic on the local news last night and I fail to see and issue with this. Maybe there is something I am not understanding but it isn't the guns fault that they were involved in crimes. I just see this as a bonus because the state is going to get money for guns they didn't purchase and not to mention it shouldn't be an issue as long as they are sold by licenses gun dealers, which they are.

http://www.kpho.com/story/20378059/gun-debate-brings-new-law-to-the-forefront
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link!

I was "sort of" aware of some of those facts, but this video was a graphic demonstration of the similarities and differences between various automatic and semi automatic weapons. Too bad reporters won't watch it before reporting, and neither will the Congress Critters!

Also, I appreciated the link of all of the armed citizens who have stopped shootings from becoming mass shootings. I knew of a few such incidents, but was not aware of most of them. I do believe that media reporting, both quality and quantity DOES have a lot to do with both the shaping of the average citizen's feelings about an emotional topic, AND the behavior of sick, suicidal people who want to go out with a "bigger bang" than just offing themselves.
 
Maybe my memory is just failing me, but I thought that with this latest school yard shooting event in CT, that the news was saying that the shooter had handguns on him, and the AR-15 was found in the back of a car.

The Associated Press reported that three guns were found at the scene: a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, and a .223-caliber rifle.

The rifle was found in the back of a car at the school, and the two pistols were in the school.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/natio...in-newtown-connecticut-cnn-says#ixzz2FWIeUZpW

Now all the latest buzz in the news is that the shootings were apparently done SOLELY with the AR-15. Something just doesn't add up. It sounds like the facts are being massaged into a media (and political) anti-gun feeding frenzy, and of course that AR-15 makes a much tastier target than the handguns do.
 
Rich Z said:
Maybe my memory is just failing me, but I thought that with this latest school yard shooting event in CT, that the news was saying that the shooter had handguns on him, and the AR-15 was found in the back of a car.



Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/natio...in-newtown-connecticut-cnn-says#ixzz2FWIeUZpW

Now all the latest buzz in the news is that the shootings were apparently done SOLELY with the AR-15. Something just doesn't add up. It sounds like the facts are being massaged into a media (and political) anti-gun feeding frenzy, and of course that AR-15 makes a much tastier target than the handguns do.
Click to expand...

He did have a rifle in the car and two handguns and a bush master with him in the school. Most of the shooting inside the school was with the bush master.
Regardless banning assault rifles, semi automatic whatevers is not going to stop these crimes. He didn't own these guns his mother did, he shot her and took them. There is no logic to take the guns away from mentally ill, unless you also take the guns away from everyone the mentally have access to. While I understand the outcry and that politicians hae to say and try to do something, it won't fly. If someone wants a gun, they'll get it legally or illegaly.
 
Maybe we should hire qualified vets to become armed school resource officers, and armed security for malls and other soft targets? If it became known that vets who saw real combat action were protecting kids and shoppers, maybe that would be a deterrent? Maybe the media could publish something that would deter crime instead of encourage it?

Like air marshals on planes, maybe they could cover more than one school, but in a random fashion so nobody knew exactly when they would be there? An added bonus would be employment for returning vets.

I saw a link on FB to an article that compared school fire prevention to school shooting / terrorist protection. It pointed out the costs in fire retardant materials, sprinklers, alarms, extinguishers, etc - even though it said that NO child has died in a school fire in the US in 50 years! Compared to what we spend for fire prevention, terrorist protection is almost nil. They also pointed out that schools would be a much easier target for religious or other terrorists (in addition to plain crazy people) than airplanes these days.

If classrooms had security cameras such as stores often do, and they were monitored by a qualified vet or security specialist who was armed and knew what to do, not only would it be a great deterrent, but response time would be immediate, with police back up on the way. A bonus would be the ability to support or negate child abuse accusations. When I worked in the classroom at a head start program in the '80s, I would have welcomed camera back up if some misconduct had ever been alleged. I would much rather my tax dollars being spent this way than for so many of the stupid things it is spent on now!
 
kathylove said:
Maybe we should hire qualified vets to become armed school resource officers, and armed security for malls and other soft targets? If it became known that vets who saw real combat action were protecting kids and shoppers, maybe that would be a deterrent? Maybe the media could publish something that would deter crime instead of encourage it?

Like air marshals on planes, maybe they could cover more than one school, but in a random fashion so nobody knew exactly when they would be there? An added bonus would be employment for returning vets.

I saw a link on FB to an article that compared school fire prevention to school shooting / terrorist protection. It pointed out the costs in fire retardant materials, sprinklers, alarms, extinguishers, etc - even though it said that NO child has died in a school fire in the US in 50 years! Compared to what we spend for fire prevention, terrorist protection is almost nil. They also pointed out that schools would be a much easier target for religious or other terrorists (in addition to plain crazy people) than airplanes these days.

If classrooms had security cameras such as stores often do, and they were monitored by a qualified vet or security specialist who was armed and knew what to do, not only would it be a great deterrent, but response time would be immediate, with police back up on the way. A bonus would be the ability to support or negate child abuse accusations. When I worked in the classroom at a head start program in the '80s, I would have welcomed camera back up if some misconduct had ever been alleged. I would much rather my tax dollars being spent this way than for so many of the stupid things it is spent on now!
Click to expand...

I agree, there are so many unemployed veterans right now that wouldn't hesitated to stand guard and protect our children.

There is a Marine Dad that is standing guard at his childrens schools on his day off or on his own time.

I am all for cameras in the classroom as well.
 
tsst said:
"assault weapons" were already banned in CT.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, yes they are. I think the below thread is pertinent..

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm

Specifically,

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202a.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202b.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202c.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202f.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202j.htm

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm#Sec53-202k.htm


Heck, I dunno, do you think that perhaps Connecticut just didn't have enough laws in place to impress the shooter in CT enough to stop him? Let's face it people, if someone is intent on KILLING people in a public shooting, what other laws are possibly going to be worrisome enough to them to stop them? How many laws did this kid already break? Do you think DOUBLING the number of laws would have made a darn bit of difference to him?
 
Anyone that believes gun control is about anything more than simply CONTROL is being simply naive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top