Sandy Hook Kids Graduating

[Curried Goats]

And the end result is...guns are still around, you just can't get one. Do you honestly think the government will totally stop gun manufacturing? Heck, no, it will just nationalize the industry and continue cranking them out, because the government will NOT disarm itself, ever.

I don't care if the government has guns. Other developed nations have armed governments and citizens who don't murder each other daily or themselves (the number of suicides out numbers the number of murders) because they don't have access to those guns.

 

[hadit]

I don't care if the government has guns. Other developed nations have armed governments and citizens who don't murder each other daily or themselves (the number of suicides out numbers the number of murders) because they don't have access to those guns.

And, of course, there's never going to rise to power someone who wants to use those guns in wrong ways, right? Isn't that why the usual suspects are running around with their hair on fire this election season? Freedom is dangerous, messy and chaotic. It's also preferable to the alternative.

 

[TNHarley]

Thousands of years of human history, and there are still people willing to give up their best course of defense, to the government. The biggest mass murderer on the planet. And ALWAYS will be.
Goddamn fools.
But you have a right to be a cuck ***** if you want.

 

[Curried Goats]

And, of course, there's never going to rise to power someone who wants to use those guns in wrong ways, right? Isn't that why the usual suspects are running around with their hair on fire this election season? Freedom is dangerous, messy and chaotic. It's also preferable to the alternative.

Who said that would never happen? I didn't. And who cares what other people running around are saying? Are you debating them or me?

I also don't understand here what you mean by freedom. Freedom is what you have in nature. Society is about structure and the rules that shape it. Your idea of freedom isn't an actual one based in reason, it's an ideology based in fantasy and pageantry. You don't have freedom in America or under any government. What you actually have are rights and responsibilities.

 

[hadit]

Who said that would never happen? I didn't. And who cares what other people running around are saying? Are you debating them or me?

I also don't understand here what you mean by freedom. Freedom is what you have in nature. Society is about structure and the rules that shape it. Your idea of freedom isn't an actual one based in reason, it's an ideology based in fantasy and pageantry.

It's a reality based on our history. In living memory, kids could shoot guns in school with live ammo. They could bring a gun to school and use it to hunt on the way home. You could order a gun and ammo from a catalog and have it shipped to your home with no questions asked. No one shot up their local schools, it wasn't even on the radar screen.

Today, to get a gun, you have to pass a background check. Some places you have to wait a while to actually take possession of one. There are limits on how many guns you buy in a certain time frame, there are limits on the number of bullets a gun can have in a magazine. There are more and more places where you cannot legally carry a gun. The point is, obtaining and owning a gun in America is more difficult and complicated than it has been, and what do we see? School kids getting shot. Thinking that removing guns from society will result in greater safety for school children is a fool's errand because we're not doing anything about the root causes of the violence. Partially taking away one means of carrying out that violence won't stop kids from dying.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's a reality based on our history. In living memory, kids could shoot guns in school with live ammo. They could bring a gun to school and use it to hunt on the way home. You could order a gun and ammo from a catalog and have it shipped to your home with no questions asked. No one shot up their local schools, it wasn't even on the radar screen.

Which really doesn't address the issues of today.

Today, to get a gun, you have to pass a background check. Some places you have to wait a while to actually take possession of one. There are limits on how many guns you buy in a certain time frame, there are limits on the number of bullets a gun can have in a magazine. There are more and more places where you cannot legally carry a gun. The point is, obtaining and owning a gun in America is more difficult and complicated than it has been, and what do we see? School kids getting shot. Thinking that removing guns from society will result in greater safety for school children is a fool's errand because we're not doing anything about the root causes of the violence. Partially taking away one means of carrying out that violence won't stop kids from dying.

Having more legal hoops to jump through for legal gun owners doesn't at all speak to how easy it is now for kids to get access to guns capable of murdering dozens of their classmates in seconds.

 

[hadit]

Which really doesn't address the issues of today.

Having more legal hoops to jump through for legal gun owners doesn't at all speak to how easy it is now for kids to get access to guns capable of murdering dozens of their classmates in seconds.

Trying to get rid of guns won't make kids in schools any safer, that's the point.

 

[Curried Goats]

Trying to get rid of guns won't make kids in schools any safer, that's the point.

Then why can the rest of the developed world do it?

 

[hadit]

Then why can the rest of the developed world do it?

1. Tradition. America has a long tradition of having an armed populace that didn't cause much problem until the last 50 years or so. People rightly look at that and question why we think we can fix what's wrong in society by treating a symptom. You might as well ban sneezing in public, then think you can remove the sneeze guards from salad bars. Why does urban dweller Johnny think he's going to be safer if farmer Johnny can't take his son hunting? It makes no sense.
2. The sheer number of firearms in circulation. You'll never get rid of a certain percentage of firearms due to there being so many out there, and of course, the ones that are not scooped up will be concentrated in the hands that should not have them, criminals and the government. Add to that the ability of a 3D printer to make untraceable components and they'll always be around.
3. Once you disarm the populace, they have no means of defense from enemies domestic or foreign. A disarmed populace needs only a dictator to rise to power to suffer oppression, as we have seen repeated multiple times in the last century. Saying it can't happen is foolish, because we've seen it happen, and recently.

Basically, a disarmed populace is not a long-term, stable configuration. Once you trade freedom and rights for an illusion of safety, you don't have either for very long.

 

[Curried Goats]

1. Tradition. America has a long tradition of having an armed populace that didn't cause much problem until the last 50 years or so. People rightly look at that and question why we think we can fix what's wrong in society by treating a symptom. You might as well ban sneezing in public, then think you can remove the sneeze guards from salad bars. Why does urban dweller Johnny think he's going to be safer if farmer Johnny can't take his son hunting? It makes no sense.

There is a reason appeals to tradition are known as logical fallacies.

2. The sheer number of firearms in circulation. You'll never get rid of a certain percentage of firearms due to there being so many out there, and of course, the ones that are not scooped up will be concentrated in the hands that should not have them, criminals and the government. Add to that the ability of a 3D printer to make untraceable components and they'll always be around.

The number of firearms in circulation only details the extent of the undertaking necessary not about whether or not it's possible.

3. Once you disarm the populace, they have no means of defense from enemies domestic or foreign. A disarmed populace needs only a dictator to rise to power to suffer oppression, as we have seen repeated multiple times in the last century. Saying it can't happen is foolish, because we've seen it happen, and recently.

Did we see that happen recently? If that's the case tell me how effective your firearms were at preventing it or reversing it.

Basically, a disarmed populace is not a long-term, stable configuration. Once you trade freedom and rights for an illusion of safety, you don't have either for very long.

Leaving the woods for the safety of society means exchanging freedom for safety, we're just debating how much you should be made to give up.

 

[hadit]

There is a reason appeals to tradition are known as logical fallacies.

There is a reason why we consider tradition before undertaking radical transformations of society. Think of it this way, the Supreme Court overturned a previous court's decision that prevented states from outlawing or placing significant barriers on abortion. What was the big screech we heard? Why, tradition of course. How dare the Court overturn something that was in place for 50 years? In fact, there are still idiots running around today claiming that Justices should be forced to disclose how they will rule on cases they may hear and be confirmed or rejected based on their answers, because of tradition.

The number of firearms in circulation only details the extent of the undertaking necessary not about whether or not it's possible.

It points out the futility of the exercise.

Did we see that happen recently? If that's the case tell me how effective your firearms were at preventing it or reversing it.

You're making my case. The first thing dictators do is make sure there are no firearms that can be used against them. We've also seen how a weak (on paper) nation was able to expel the vaunted Soviet military using small arms, rocks and whatever they could find to throw. A determined, armed populace that's fighting in their own backyards to protect what they have is deadly.

Leaving the woods for the safety of society means exchanging freedom for safety, we're just debating how much you should be made to give up.

And we're making the case that we don't have to give up as much as you are insisting that we do. Urbanites afraid of their own shadows should not be able to dictate firearm policy for the rest of society who are not.

 

[playtime]

You obviously do not live in Connecticut.

but i do.

We have the most tyrannical, draconian gun laws in the USA.

false. assault rifles have been banned since sandy hook - unless they are grandfathered. OH OH OH!!!! & those convicted for domestic violence cannot own a gun.

damn, how draconian....

guns must be registered.

ooooOOOOOOOOoooo ... so do cars.

To buy a single bullet, one must take a class, get a special permit, and then every single bullet purchased is recorded and reported to the Connecticut government.

you need to pass a gun safety class & a permit to buy a gun; & cannot buy ammo w/out a gun permit. how radical.

as for buying ammo:

Summary
Neither federal nor Connecticut state law require ammunition sellers to keep records of ammunition sales. We identified at least four jurisdictions (California, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia) that have ammunition purchase record-keeping requirements. These requirements generally (1) require sellers to maintain electronic databases on ammunition sales, (2) establish the specific information sellers must collect on each purchase, and (3) require sellers to allow reasonable access to the records by law enforcement.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/rpt/pdf/2023-R-0033.pdf

Nowhere else in the USA is tracking every bullet sold, or maybe there are other places? Connecticut is the only place I know that a person needs a special permit.

we have several firearms in our home & hubby only needs to renew his permit when the time to do so rolls around.

 

[elektra]

false. assault rifles have been banned since sandy hook - unless they are grandfathered. OH OH OH!!!! & those convicted for domestic violence cannot own a gun.

Nothing I stated is false, I never stated that assault rifles were not banned. But hey, you are just showing you do not know what you are talking about and lack comprehension skills.

Of course, you could go back and actually quote the statement where you claim I said assault rifles are not banned.

 

[playtime]

Nothing I stated is false, I never stated that assault rifles were not banned. But hey, you are just showing you do not know what you are talking about and lack comprehension skills.

Of course, you could go back and actually quote the statement where you claim I said assault rifles are not banned.

i didn't say you said anything of the sort.

howeverrrrrrrrrrrr.................. you did say CT has draconian laws re: firearms .... did you not? i would figure that assault rifles, such as the bushmaster - the one that adam lanza used to turn 20 children & 6 teachers into swiss cheese, & is one of of them thar long guns now banned, falls into that draconian type of law you proclaim CT has... amiright?

soooooooooo............ whatcha think about the fact they ARE banned? huh huh HUH? think that should be repealed?

 

[john doe 101]

Trying to get rid of guns won't make kids in schools any safer, that's the point.

Are you actually suggesting eliminating all guns wouldnt make a society safer?

 

[hadit]

Are you actually suggesting eliminating all guns wouldnt make a society safer?

You could make society safer if you eliminate all objects from the peoples' access that throw things at high rates of speed. That means no slingshots for kids, no archery for anyone, no model rockets, etc. They're all too dangerous.
You could make society safer if you force all vehicles to travel less than 35 mph. We lose roughly as many lives on the highways every year as we do to guns, yet I see everyone perfectly willing to accept those deaths purely so they can drive fast.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all sharp objects and the means to make dull ones sharp. Knives kill a lot of people every year and they are too dangerous to leave in the hands of free people.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all chemicals that cause death when ingested. Poison kills people, and they need to be controlled.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all chemicals that can be mixed and go bang. Park a truck in front of a building, hit the ignite switch, and people die. How better to stop it than eliminate fertilizer?

So, yes, in your extreme, ludicrously unworkable, theoretical utopia, no guns at all means a "safer" society, but it also means a far less FREE society, and remember, even in the strictest, most utopian of all "gun free" societies, there are still two groups of people who have and use guns. If you don't know who, I'll tell you, but you should be able figure it out.

I am also seriously stating several things regarding trying to eliminate guns in America:

1. You will never get rid of all of them because there are far too many of them and far too many owners see no positive benefit to getting rid of them. Combine that with American independence, and you have a recipe where it becomes a game to own and hide guns, just like distilling moonshine and outrunning the police in fast cars became a game that ultimately turned into NASCAR.
2. Guns are not the cause of the deaths we see, and taking guns away will not remove the psychoses that are driving people to kill other people, it will just cause them to turn to other methods of achieving the same ends.
3. 3D printers can now make gun components that are untraceable. Sure, they can only be used a few times, but they can still kill people. Good luck trying to shut that down.

Freedom is dangerous, messy, and chaotic. It's also preferable to the alternative. And finally, remember that those who trade freedom for an illusion of safety wind up with neither.

 

[2aguy]

Sandy Hook shooting survivors to graduate with mixed emotions without 20 of their classmates

The children who survived the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, will be graduating high school with mixed emotions.

apnews.com

From the piece...

NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — Like graduating seniors everywhere, members of Newtown High School’s class of 2024 expect bittersweet feelings at their commencement ceremony — excitement about heading off to college or careers and sadness about leaving their friends and community.

But about 60 of the 330 kids graduating Wednesday will also be carrying the emotional burden that comes from having survived one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history and knowing many former classmates won’t get to walk across the stage with them. Twenty of their fellow first graders and six educators were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012.

We seldom think about the survivors and the stuff they had to go through. Glad to see that many are graduating and have gotten past (if not gotten over) the tragedy. Sad to see that so little has changed in the area of the availability of these weapons. It has gotten worse; not better.

Yes.....little has changed...the democrat party continues to fight so that schools are defenseless in the face of attack.....the democrat party needs schools to be gun free zone because dead school children is the best tool they have to stampede uninformed Americans into allowing democrats to ban guns.

While mass public shootings cost a low number of lives each year, the democrats get the most coverage for them from the democrat party media.......which is why they need school shootings....
A school shooting gives the democrat party emotional black male like no other crime.....and that is why they will not protect schools from attack....they need dead school children to push gun control...

Normal people do now use their guns to commit crime or murder....so the democrat party politicians, judges and prosecutors keep releasing actual gun criminals back onto our streets....because they do shoot people.....without criminals, democrats have a much harder time pushing gun control.

The problem for the democrats is the majority of gun murders....

1) Happen in democrat party controlled cities where they have extreme gun control.....

2) are committed by young black men who are career criminals

3) happen in tiny areas of these democrat party controlled cities........

Because young black men are the ones doing the majority of the gun murders, it is hard for the democrat party to exploit those shootings...and also, because they occur in democrat party controlled cities, if you don't live in those neighborhoods, you have little to fear from gang shootings.....

this is why the democrat party needs mass public shootings.......

1) They are random and occur in gun free zones that are not gang infested areas.....

2) The shooters are primarily not young black men...so they don't have to fear being called racists for using these shootings....

In 2023, there were 12 mass public shootings....

A total of 75 people were murdered.....

For perspective....

Bicycles killed 891 (2020)

Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...
While mass public shootings cost a low number of lives each year, the democrats get the most coverage for them from the democrat party media.......which is why they need school shootings....
A school shooting gives the democrat party emotional black male like no other crime.....and that is why they will not protect schools from attack....they need dead school children to push gun control...

 

[john doe 101]

You could make society safer if you eliminate all objects from the peoples' access that throw things at high rates of speed. That means no slingshots for kids, no archery for anyone, no model rockets, etc. They're all too dangerous.
You could make society safer if you force all vehicles to travel less than 35 mph. We lose roughly as many lives on the highways every year as we do to guns, yet I see everyone perfectly willing to accept those deaths purely so they can drive fast.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all sharp objects and the means to make dull ones sharp. Knives kill a lot of people every year and they are too dangerous to leave in the hands of free people.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all chemicals that cause death when ingested. Poison kills people, and they need to be controlled.
You could make society safer if you eliminate all chemicals that can be mixed and go bang. Park a truck in front of a building, hit the ignite switch, and people die. How better to stop it than eliminate fertilizer?

So, yes, in your extreme, ludicrously unworkable, theoretical utopia, no guns at all means a "safer" society, but it also means a far less FREE society, and remember, even in the strictest, most utopian of all "gun free" societies, there are still two groups of people who have and use guns. If you don't know who, I'll tell you, but you should be able figure it out.

I am also seriously stating several things regarding trying to eliminate guns in America:

1. You will never get rid of all of them because there are far too many of them and far too many owners see no positive benefit to getting rid of them. Combine that with American independence, and you have a recipe where it becomes a game to own and hide guns, just like distilling moonshine and outrunning the police in fast cars became a game that ultimately turned into NASCAR.
2. Guns are not the cause of the deaths we see, and taking guns away will not remove the psychoses that are driving people to kill other people, it will just cause them to turn to other methods of achieving the same ends.
3. 3D printers can now make gun components that are untraceable. Sure, they can only be used a few times, but they can still kill people. Good luck trying to shut that down.

Freedom is dangerous, messy, and chaotic. It's also preferable to the alternative. And finally, remember that those who trade freedom for an illusion of safety wind up with neither.

Too many white hillbillies like you in this country to ever eliminate guns. It was purely a hypothetical.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Why didnt they make the judgement $34 trillion? The debt could have been paid off?

Judgement is a total scam and anyone who supports it is a piece of garbage.

 

[hadit]

Too many white hillbillies like you in this country to ever eliminate guns. It was purely a hypothetical.

And there it is, the most amateur of amateur argument tactics, trying to deflect onto the other person instead of the subject at hand. You know you just conceded the whole thing, right?