web analytics

Continued thoughts go out to the families affected by the Sandy Hook shooting…

I challenge anyone who says that assault weapons should not be OUTLAWED….ANYONE! There is no need for machine guns and or semi-automatic assault pistols to be available to the general public. NONE. they are not used for hunting…And if anyone disagrees, try telling that to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and family members who lost a loved one in yesterdays massacre…And then is suggest you rethink your values and whats important in life because your thought process is extremely skewed…
fire-staff-school-sandy.n

  1. lucifer
    lucifer12-15-2012

    Although I have a gift to feel pain from others I dare not open this door. My prayers go out them them.
    If I see a small shoe on the I think I might break down and cry. RIP

  2. Jim Hlavac
    Jim Hlavac12-15-2012

    Don’t blame the tool – there are millions of reasonable people with guns who don’t kill anyone; why punish them? Now, if someone was to use a car to drive into a crowd, and mow down and kill people — would you argue for the removal of cars from the hands of reasonable people? If a man took a knife (as I have seen, personally, with blood on my shirt,) and stabbed 15 or 20 people in a supermarket, would you advocate for the rounding up of all the knives? The idea that “guns” did anything is frankly, absurd. Sorry, I’m going to disagree with you — for I cannot blame a tool for horror, nor accuse innocent reasonable people for the crimes of one.

    Not to mention, that gun violence seems to be mostly with illegal guns — and all the taking of legal guns will do nothing to that problem. Criminals and crazies with guns are not going to hand them over to anyone.

    And, I’d like to note — that guns in the hands of government killed many millions — it goes on today. Would that the Syrian people had some guns, eh? To get rid of their tyrant? To give all the guns to government has never been a good idea.

    Oh, I understand the anguish, the pain — but I will not therefore jump on to the illogical wagon.

    • Izzoiz
      Izzoiz12-15-2012

      I am all for people owning guns, but there is no reason that assault weapons, such as machine guns should be sold to the public. no reason. Hunting rifles i completely understand but assault weapons are not used for hunting. when the constitution was created, the second amendment refereed to the guns they used at that time, especially for hunting. they had no idea, nor could they for see, what the guns of today would be like. This is not about jumping on a band wagon because of the freshness of this massacre, i have long felt this way. the assault weapons ban, needs to come back.

  3. SP
    SP12-16-2012

    in 1996 here in Australia, In the state of Tasmania there was a mass shooting were 60 people either killed or wounded. after this gun laws in Australia changed for ever.

    Semi-automatic rifles and pump action/self-loading shotguns were banned from civilians and a genuine reason was required for all other firearms. Licensing is also introduced, and both a firearms license and a buyers permit are necessary to legally purchase a firearm. Furthermore, an acceptable reason must be stated on the permit for buying the weapon, and a minimum 28 day “cooling off” period must be enforced before the issuing of the license.

    since then there have been shootings but nothing like this has ever happened again and I hope it never does.

    follow our lead America and ban guns from the public

    • MacTX
      MacTX12-16-2012

      No offense, but it doesn’t give me any confidence that there were shootings after the extreme gun law overhaul over there, nor am I surprised by that. In the US, some of the states enacted much stricter gun control laws after various incidents, which did very little to curtail gun violence (some would argue it did the opposite). Our president’s own home state is an example (he made mention of it in his address the other day). It is without a sense of irony that he himself voted to pass stricter gun control laws for his state during his term as Senator. If you visit America, Chicago is not one of the destinations that should be on your list; very high crime and very strict gun control laws.

  4. David
    David12-16-2012

    I feel so sorry for the many families that have been affected yet again by another gun tragedy. There is no need for weapons of this kind to be in our community. We need to change our way of thinking of what our right to bear arms truly means. If we continue without any change to our attitude towards gun control then these innocent lives were worthless. Just one less gun in the hands of someone who has lost all comprehension and respect of life can mean saving many. We need to change Now!

  5. MacTX
    MacTX12-16-2012

    YOU and those like you are to blame for this tragedy. You have done everything you can to make it easy for the criminals and more difficult for law abiding citizens. EVERY school massacre in the past 20 yrs is on a gun free zone. The Aurora theater shooting occurred at a place of business with a gun free zone policy. You’re the one who should be rethinking your values.

    1. Every gun control law passed to prevent this type of massacre failed. It’s asinine to think that passing a law will prevent someone from harming someone else. That federal no guns on school premises law really worked here, right?

    2. “semi-automatic assault pistols”

    Really? You watch too much mainstream media; you’re regurgitating the BS they’re spewing. Learn to think for yourself!

    3. Machine guns aren’t available to the general public, just police, military and the government. Fully automatic weaponry is pretty much out of reach of the public… unless it’s stolen… and where are they going to steal it from… police, military, the government. Or, if you’re the Mexican drug cartel, they’re given to you from our own US government. Research the fast and furious incident from earlier this year (and no, I don’t mean the movie).

    4. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I looked but I couldn’t find muskets anywhere in that amendment. The writers weren’t stupid, they knew things progressed and changed. Notice how nothing is stated about hunting but it is specifically and clearly stated “security of a free State.” I don’t need a decoder ring to figure out what that means. Some of us apparent do. The only reason firearms is included was to protect the people from tyranny. They experienced it, they knew history and they knew it was a possibility again. Again, these weren’t stupid men.

    5. They should be asking why school zones are STILL gun free zones today. That law is a failed experiment from over 20 yrs ago by the anti-gun group, yet they won’t admit it. What makes me angry is that ONE gun could have ended it before it got to the kids. You blame the gun; I blame the person who pulled that trigger and the law makers and anti-gun crowd that prevented the staff and teachers from having guns on premises. Unstable individuals will harm others no matter what laws you pass. They were doing it long before the invention of the gun and they’ll do it far into the future. Force is the only response they know and fear. Otherwise, you just give them a building full of helpless adults and children and wonder how a massacre could happen. That is what your anti-gun stance has created. You make it so easy for the nuts out there to do what they do best, harm others.

    • Izzoiz
      Izzoiz12-16-2012

      I suggest you look up the guns that were recovered in the massacre. They ARE ASSAULT weapons and have no place in society. If you read the post correctly i clearly state that i am not against gun ownership, i am against assault weapons that the guns used in this shooting CLEARLY fall under. I come from a family of gun owners, sibling who hunt, i have no issues with people owning guns, however these types of guns are not used for sport or hunting.

      I ultimately blame the douchebag that murdered these kids and adults. all of these assault weapons were registered in his mothers name. For what reason she felt the need to have these types of guns living in Newtown, a town i know by the way being that i live 20 mins from there and have friends who live in the town, will never be known. I would like you to explain to the parents and family members why guns that can spray multiple bullets in seconds should be available to the public? I dare you. these guns are only manufactured for warfare type use. and you know that. this massacre could not have been pulled off with a regular hunting rifle. It certainly would not have had the amount of casualties that these weapons can cause. Not that even one casualty is acceptable.

      anyone who reads this blogs knows i think for myself. I do not get caught up in the hysteria of a situation. But i will say this, i again suggest you take your “Michigan militia” ideals and go sit with the families of these children and make your case for why assault weapons should be available to the public. And if you do not walk away a changed person, i feel gravely sorry for you…

      • MacTX
        MacTX12-16-2012

        I’m already aware of the weapons recovered and I read your post and clearly understood what you said but rejected the premise of your argument. Banning “assault” weapons wouldn’t have prevented this massacre. With the amount of firepower and the defenseless adults and children, the deaths could have been in the hundreds. 28 lives is small compared to the number of lives in that building. An experienced shooter (like this killer) with a gun that only held 5 round magazines could accomplish this very quickly. A gun that only held 1 round at a time would make it more difficult but still could accomplish the same task. It takes seconds to manually chamber and fire (you should try that the next time you go to the range). So what do we do, ban all guns that can fire more than 1 round at a time? Will this solve the problem? For someone who has never fired a gun before, it could. For the rest, nope. What then? Total/complete gun ban? When all the law abiding citizens have turned in their guns but the criminals haven’t. What then?

        Not that I don’t believe you but your post did not suggest that you came from a gun family.

        “There is no need for machine guns and or semi-automatic assault pistols to be available to the general public..”

        That is something I would have expected from the media, not someone familiar with guns and the law.

        “I would like you to explain to the parents and family members why guns that can spray multiple bullets in seconds should be available to the public? I dare you. these guns are only manufactured for warfare type use. and you know that. this massacre could not have been pulled off with a regular hunting rifle.”

        I would tell them what we’ve been discussing here. That their children died because certain elements of our society live in a fantasy world where they believe everyone is safe and that the police will always be there to protect everyone, everywhere. This couldn’t be further from the truth. They believe that one should treat the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause. Their children died because law makers have passed laws to try to prevent gun violence but instead these laws have done nothing to prevent them but instead have hindered others who could have minimized or even prevented those deaths.

        Since you should be well aware that automatic weapons are not available to the general public, you must be talking about semi-autos and a fast trigger finger? That covers every gun currently available to the public that has a magazine that contains more than 1 round. You already read my views on that situation.

        You and those directly affected are too close to the epicenter of the event. Your emotions cloud your judgment on the issue. You ask what the mother’s reasons were for having the arms that she did but fail to ask why the shooter decided to do what he did. The mother question is irrelevant as it doesn’t contribute to solving the problem but the shooter question is as what we learn could actually help to curtail future incidents. Your main focus is still on the gun itself. You are only looking at the surface of the problem. You cut the blades of grass only at the tip to try to kill them but are surprised when they continue to grow. That is the mindset of the anti-gun group. You/they can’t understand why gun control isn’t working and you never will if all you’ll fixate on is the gun itself.

        • Izzoiz
          Izzoiz12-16-2012

          i have made it clear that i am not anti-gun. I am anti- weapons such as the ones used. Like i said before they are made for warfare. it is that simple. I also said that i ultimately blame the shooter, all shooters that commit these insane crimes. I am not solely blaming the gun, a gun can not shoot it’s self. I firmly stand by what i said, about those types of guns being available to the public. Law enforcement, yes, military yes, but civilians have no need to have weapons such as those. the scumbags of Columbine and Virginia tech also had guns of this ilk.

          My emotions no more cloud my judgement than your staunch protection of guns clouds yours. Wouldn’t you say? When a mother or father is sitting in front of you and telling you how their 8 year old was shot to death in their class room and the body had to lay their for 3 days before they could retrieve it or the teacher who was able to hide all her kids in a bathroom only to have them say “we don’t’ want to die, we just want to have Christmas” I highly doubt the response you made above, would fall from your lips.

          • MacTX
            MacTX12-16-2012

            My emotions come from watching how we’ve progressed since the Columbine shooting. I can be really callus when it comes to empathy on the subject of gun control and its failures. I learnt then that putting up a sign that says no guns allowed will do absolutely nothing to prevent tragedies like that. The difference between you and I is that I’m far removed by both distance and time. To me, this is just another massacre, another statistics and example point at how well gun control has worked in our country. I feel as much for the victims, families, and the incident as I do for this plant sitting on my desk. It’s just another “I told you so” moment for me. I would have no problem telling them what I’ve said to you. The only difference is that I would have to wait till they’ve calm down and gotten over their current state of shock and grief; when they’re thinking clear again. If you know anything about human psychology, you know they’re not thinking clearly now. Neither are a lot of the people out there whose world has just been rocked. Their perfect world has just been shattered. I’m unaffected because I’m not naive enough to think we live in a perfect. I’m well aware of the world we live in and the uncontrollable nature of humans.

            My point is that gun control won’t work. As long as military and police still have guns of any type, they will always be out there. They may try as hard as they want to keep control of them but some will always get into the wrong hands. Limiting the type also won’t work; we’ve already tried that approach as well. Did you forget the massacre at Columbine was during the Assault Weapons Ban period? That ban (as well as all the other gun control measures) was effective at preventing that tragedy wasn’t it? That Oregon mall shooting that the president mention, which got completely overshadowed, would gun control laws have worked in that situation as well? Reports I’ve read states a stolen AR-15, a gun free zone, and 3 deaths. What good is gun control or a ban if criminals aren’t going to follow them? I even read the strict laws they have in Australia. I don’t even think those laws would have done anything to have prevented the school shooting. I’m operating on the premise that nothing we’ve tried for the past 50 yrs in terms of gun control has worked and I don’t see any further gun control would ever work. Granted, you’ll get the few criminals and psychopaths that get a road block put in front of them but road blocks don’t stop them, they just go around them. The problem lies with gun control itself; it doesn’t address the real problem. These tragedies WILL continue until we actually address the problem. What would work is complete and total disarmament of everyone, worldwide; since we’re well past that possibility, that’s not really an option. The Columbine and Virginia tech massacre was also on a gun free zone; experienced shoots here as well. Everything I’ve read, here, elsewhere and I still come back to one conclusion; 1 gun could have stopped this shooter, just 1 gun. We have tried and failed with gun control laws. Do we try with 50 more yrs of additional useless gun control laws before we come to our senses?

          • Izzoiz
            Izzoiz12-17-2012

            I would beg to imagine that the guns used in Columbine were probably purchased by whomever before the assault weapons ban. I think it is obvious that once that ban was in place there was no way to confiscate them from everyone or have them turn them in.

            It is quite clear that where you and i stand on this issue and there is NO persuading either side to jump ship of their opinions. However i find your callousness toward the victims and their families quite disturbing and sad for you. Your lack of sympathy for these families by equating them to a plant on your desk, makes one think that you identify with the shooter and that would be beyond disturbing and explains your defense of assault weapons. So i am ending this exchange because your views and mind set shows me a person who is disconnected and severely lacking in empathy and compassion for your fellow man and that is not a person i am interested in knowing.

Leave a Reply