This is why we can't have meaningful dialogue on important issues. People are so ready to be offended and find offense where there is none. He didn't say he found the events to be amusing, he said it's these discussions that are amusing. I don't know foxjack and I didn't go back to check his stance on gun control, but I think it's safe to say that he found no amusement in anyone's death. No where did he say the deaths of 20 six and seven year old kids was amusing. Argue points of debate all you want, don't make anyone out to be amused at death. He didn't say that. Didn't imply it.

---

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

Actually I meant to say "The ironic part is" I was carrying on with another IM at the same time, guess some messages got crossed, sorry for the miscommunication.

Age has never stopped kids from acquiring beer, they usually just ask their friends or whatever (even though it’s completely illegal to buy alcohol for a minor and it can result in loss of job/jail time or at the very least a fine). However, with guns people are usually smart enough not to give them to their friends, especially if they know they aren't fit to have such weapons.

As for semi auto guns, they serve the same purpose as alcohol, fun to use; it’s a change of pace and all of that they need different skill sets to fire. I don't see why people think the only point of guns is too killing others.

And semi auto shotguns can be useful for bird hunting, sometimes the bird shot bounces off the feathers if they're flying toward you, it’s helpful not have to break aim to reload it.

I don't know if you'd really want to defend your home with a shot gun though, they are messy, depending what round is in them they could easy pass though the intruder and depending on the thickness of your wall that too.

I've lost loved ones to drunk drivers; you going to get everyone to stop drinking so I don't have to worry about any alcohol related violence, or do you only care about getting rid of things that you don't enjoy? Or are those deaths acceptable to you?

I was attempting to make a comparison between the two beings both are things people do to relax and both cause loss of human life due to negligence. I figured it might be easier to make a point though that, perhaps I was wrong, so sorry for even bringing it up.

I backed out a couple days ago out of disgust over the whole situation. It is still disgusting, and I agree with every one here that something needs to be done.

But here's my final post on the subject.

Going back to our original debate, Sprite, you countered my statement about deaths due to smoking with laws on where you can smoke, public ads on the dangers of smoking, and increased taxes on cigarettes. And you are correct, that measures are being taken to curb smoking.

But that doesn't affect my statement. What the majority of people on here are looking for is a complete and total ban on guns. So where 100% of smokers are killing themselves, and 100% of smokers who smoke around others are damaging the health of others, we have a "sin tax" and some scary pictures on the side of the carton, and smokers can only smoke in designated areas.

Shooters can already only shoot in designated areas. If you calculate the number of households who have guns, and the number of murders with guns, 0.05% of gun owners will kill somebody. That's assuming that each murderer only kills one person, and each gun owning household has just one gun owner, so the actual percentage is much, much less.

Since I've been vilified for using numbers before, I will state this clearly. No death is acceptable. Not even one.

But, with something that has no value except death, and 100% of it's user's are killing themselves and others, we have a "sin tax". With something that less than 0.05% of it's owners are killing themselves or others, we are screaming for a complete ban. Does that make sense? Forget the "saving one life is worth it". Take your opinions on cigarettes and guns out of the equation, and ask yourself if it truly makes sense. 100% of one are killers, 99.95% of the other are not.

That's not even considering the fact that the latter is constitutionally protected.

As far as my statements on the other amendments, don't think I'm so stupid as to think somebody would be prayed to death. But with Al'Qaeda killing people off of a religious belief, and extremist groups like WBC here in America, it doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision a time where religious beliefs lead to death, and where preventing "peaceable gatherings" at these groups' places of worship could curtail deaths. So my questions are still valid.

But, let me say this, in closing. This is not directed at any person in particular, so don't take it personally.

If you don't want guns in your house, I applaud you. However, for me, and my house, I do not make that same choice. Pictures are floating around of the 20 innocent children killed at Sandy Hook, and they should. We should remember these poor victims, who were cut down before they had a chance to live. However, when I see these kids, I see my children. I do it every day when a little one comes in to the hospital as a victim of drowning or shooting or some other horrible accident. After I have to restrain the grieving fathers because they lash out against the doctors and nurses who tried their best to save their child, I have to find some corner and cry, because the entire time I'm there, I see my child on the table. These deaths haunt me. The little girl who had the same hair as my daughter. The little boy whose father just wanted to be by his side, but couldn't because of a divorce similar to mine. The blood pouring out of every opening as the doctors try to save their little lives. I can't get these images out of my head.

So when that "mentally unstable" person comes in, assaults the emergency room staff, and then spews threats against me as I'm tying him down, I take them to heart. When he says he's going to kill me and then rape and murder my daughter, I remember that. And I carry to make sure that little dipshit doesn't make good on his threats. So if you can go throughout life without feeling the need for a gun, more power to you. I cannot, and I will not stand aside and let you take away my rights to protect my beautiful daughter or my two amazing sons, based off of either your fear of guns, dislike or misunderstanding of guns, or the actions of the 0.05%.

Until we end this culture we have in America, where killing and death is glorified, and is a multimillion dollar revenue generator, where killers become famous, and where physical violence is an acceptable response to somebody making you mad, then I will continue to carry and fight for my right to carry. Because until that happens, killing will continue. These mentally unstable dipshits will continue to find a way to kill. And I will continue to find a way to protect my family from them. Gun bans will not stop anything, just like alcohol's prohibition did nothing, and the war on drugs has done nothing.

464 school age children were shot this year in Chicago, the city with the strictest gun laws in the country, few, if any, by so called assault weapons. Don't you think your emphasis is a little misplaced?

Its such and absolute shit thing that this is happened. Nothing was right about the situation but i do have sympathy as a psychiatric nurse and sister to an autistic and aspergers brother to the main gun man who was also aspergers . My heart goes out to all those families that were affected and wont get to see their beautiful, strong, happy children grown up. Their sure as hell in a better place then the complected world we live in.

Regards to guns, the American government should take a leaf out of Australias laws and have a good think

---

Chelsea xxxx

Just to clarify what I believe foxjack was trying to say.

You are right, shotguns are the best for home defense, because they have the best chance of 1) hitting the intruder and 2) doing the most damage. This isn't the movies, where people die after one bullet. Shotguns increase the amount of projectiles that you're sending the intruder's way, as well as the wound channel, thus increasing the effectiveness of your shot.

However, what Foxjack was probably referring to is the fact that as a responsible gun owner, using a weapon in self defense, you are responsible for every single projectile the instant you pull the trigger. If you're using #4 buckshot with 24 pellets, and 23 of them hit the intruder, but the 24th blasts through the wall and kills the person next door, you are responsible for that death. It doesn't matter that you were defending yourself; the death of the intruder will most likely be justifiable homicide, the death of your neighbor will get you sent to prison.

As far as there being a "very probable" chance of hitting the wall framing, most houses are build with the studs 12" on center, some up to 16" on center. So every 12-16", there is a stud, which measures 1.75" wide. Unless my math is off, that puts it at a 85-90% chance that you will not hit wall framing.

So yes, shotguns are the best for home defense. Apartment defense, not as much. But either way, there is a huge responsibility that some are not willing to take. Being responsible for all 24 pellets that you're spraying with each trigger pull is a lot.

Last comment (and this time I mean it): For those of you who are saying "We banned guns in X, and our gun crime went down", please take a moment to think of what you are saying. It's the same as me saying "McDonalds took the double cheeseburger off their menu, and people stopped ordering double cheeseburgers". Of course they did. When you took guns off of the murder "menu", of course there are going to be less gun crimes. But the people who dine at McDonalds will not stop going just because the double cheeseburger is gone, they'll order something else. Likewise, the people who are intent on murder aren't going to change just because the gun is "off the menu", they'll just use something else. Show me statistics where the gun ban reduced the murder and assault rates equal to the amount of gun related murders and assaults prior to the ban, and I will retract my statement. As of yet, I haven't seen any statistics that have come close to supporting that claim.

I haven't seen stats that say crime gets worse after guns become restricted or banned. As such, for me, it's a net positive to have the same crime threats with less deadly weapons around. If the whole "only outlaws will have guns" bullshit held water, then crime rates would go through the roof after gun ownership restrictions took affect. I've yet to see any evidence of that. Even the NRA's pet stats don't show that.

I don't believe that we'll enter a utopian phase of society if tougher gun laws get enacted, but I see no disadvantage to doing it. "Guns-and-god" government-phobes do, but they're paranoid and creepy, so I consider the source of the protest.

I read LM's post.

And now the conspiracy theories will begin, deflecting attention from the real issues of a violent society and culture, inadequate support and treatment for mental health issues, and inadequate regulation of and limitations on guns.

---

You've just been in a room/school where a crazed man has shot a fuckload of people.... my response would NOT be to put myself forwards for interview. Maybe I'm just not as gutsy as some, but I would NOT want to make my face one that someone who may be in cahoots with said crazed man would recognise. Why would you risk potentially making yourself a target???

I'm amazed that this thread is still going on...

The various statistics all show that nations that have tighter rules on guns have less gun related deaths. America is right up there on the list of gun deaths per year.... 50% of the world's guns reside in America.... 5% of the world's population reside in America. Nice.

God bless the United States of America....you'll fuckin' need it.

Edit: Note only the first paragraph of my post is aimed at you LM.

It may just be a random guy in the woods. But it is definitely worth asking about. If it has nothing to do with what happened, you'd think the authorities would have said so... they haven't. At least not that I've seen yet. These aren't the exact reports I saw live in my area, but they're essentially the same thing I did see.

---

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

We've all learned that there was a ton of incorrect information that was given out immediately after this happened (i.e., Ryan Lanza was the shooter, his mother was a teacher or a teacher's aide at the school and found dead in the classroom, and the brother was the dead body at the house), and I believe the second shooter in black is part of that misinformation. While watching the news the next day and the reporter was backtracking on some information, they pointed out several times that the information was very "fluid" to explain the inconsistencies. I've heard explained several times that the man in black led away in handcuffs was Ryan Lanza when he was taken into custody. We all saw him in his black coat and handcuffs being put in the car.

Also, if I were an "eyewitness" to that day, there is no f*ing way that I would be talking to reporters. It's less than a week later. I'm sure we will be learning more than we ever wanted to know in the days to come.



My mouth literally fell open when I read that statement. Why in the world would your child ever NEED to use an assault weapon (I assume you mean when she is an adult, but I'm beginning to wonder)? I am in my 40's and have never had a need to use an assault weapon or any gun for that matter. What's more, no one that I have ever known has ever needed to use one. Unless you're in the military/law enforcement (and I'm pretty sure they'll teach you), why would there ever be a need.

What you NEED to teach your child is to be kind, loving, and compassionate towards other people and not how to blow them into little pieces.

---

If you haven't, you should read this award-winning story. Fine, fine, I only won a potato, but I'm sure you won't be able to peel your eyes away from it.

---

Tom's Notebook, or The Misadventures of an Unrepentant Souse, soon to be a major motion picture - well, a minor still-life drawing - penned by the trembling hand that conjured up such overtures to love-that-dare-not-stick-its-finger-down-its-throat, (for fear of what unspeakable horrors, from what unnamable levels of fresh hell, might conceivably become uncovered, and unwittingly dredged up), as The Extrapolated Scarlet Garment, Columbine in Fifth Street Traffic, and that Elmer Fudd inspired classic, Dwive, ("My wuv is wike a wed, wed, wose...") (pause for intermission, cigarettes, and the chance to catch one's breath), - is now perched like a flasher with a major grin pinned to his face, and a minor in French literature, upon Oberon's invitingly admission-fee-suspended, pimped and tarted profile page, for your perusal, and - although it's highly doubtful - your enjoyment.

(Please direct all outraged e-mails, uncollected invoices or litigation papers to the owners of this site.)