Another school shooting - DPChallenge Forums

12/19/2012 06:52:48 AM · #576

It struck me, as I read a local Connecticut article about those with Aspergers, and on the autism spectrum expecting a backlash following the Sandy Hook tragedy, how piss poor it would be for us to blame this condition for the shooting and not the guns, the easy availability of weapons. As far as I know, its a stretch to fund a correlation between the syndrome and violence, and an insulting stretch. There is no difficulty finding a correlation between guns and mass murders.

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 07:16:51.

12/19/2012 07:13:10 AM · #577

i agree, i don think society is taking the easy road here with blaming guns. there has a been a backlash building for some time and this is probably the tipping point. You can't do any worse than murdering kindergartners with guns.

every person that does this has some sort of screw loose, that been obvious. it would be one thing if every single murderer was inching toward the autistic end of the spectrum but that's not the case. the direct correlation to all the mass murders is guns and their availability, so of course the quick fix is to take away the guns.

i am however on the fence about the whole gun issue.

i can see why people want to be able to own them, its the ultimate equalizer and many want to protect their homes and property.

on the other hand its clear they give people the will and ability to do what they shouldn't be doing and hurting innocents in the process.

i am leaning toward giving up the right and choosing to have the authorities to protect me over being able to protect myself. i think its a much safer world with less guns not more.

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 07:15:58.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

12/19/2012 10:00:00 AM · #578

Originally posted by mike_311:

i am leaning toward giving up the right and choosing to have the authorities to protect me over being able to protect myself. i think its a much safer world with less guns not more.

As a cop told me when I asked for advice, "When seconds count, we (the police) are minutes away.".

Part of having the right is choosing NOT to exercise it.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

12/19/2012 10:00:42 AM · #579

Originally posted by mike_311:

I've been thinking about this. I'll probably get jumped all over for this but, I think the real problem is the ammunition. Why not destroy all the ammunition? For the people that sport shoot, make a bullet that breaks clay pigeons, or tears through paper but wouldn't hurt a human. For the hunters, especially the "sport" hunters, make them use only rifles that shoot one shot. If you miss, you're really not a good hunter are you? Why do you need to shoot 30 bullets at once? Of course a hunter could go crazy and still shoot someone. But they're only going to kill one person. Let the people keep their guns! Get rid of what they are really using to hurt large numbers of people at once. Non lethal bullets for those that want to carry for protection. You can physically hurt your attacker long enough to get away. Anyone? Of course I know this is a pipe dream, but...

nygold

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

12/19/2012 10:06:26 AM · #580

It's not hard to make your own ammo.

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 10:06:38.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

12/19/2012 10:07:18 AM · #581

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/19/2012 10:13:33 AM · #582

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

12/19/2012 10:15:07 AM · #583

Kelli there is a prob with making a bullet that will go through a paper target and not skin....It called muzzle velocity. People that target practice will shoot targets hundreds of yard away. I routinely shoot at 200 yards. So I looked up a very common round... the 30-06. Depending on the grain of the bullet depends on velocity. The 30-06 varies between 2400 fps to 3505 fps. velocity controls acuracy.

I do understand that police use less than lethal rounds some. Most of those rounds are for shotguns and are for fairly close range..(25 - 50 feet) They do make a round for the 9mm that is a plastic round...It is also for very close range.

12/19/2012 10:27:56 AM · #584

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will.

Guns can kill. They can also be used to put holes in paper as a measure of skill. They can serve as a deterrent to crime. They are tools.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

12/19/2012 10:43:11 AM · #585

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will.

Guns can kill. They can also be used to put holes in paper as a measure of skill. They can serve as a deterrent to crime. They are tools.

Not tools, weapons.

A dildo makes a great paperweight, etc....

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

12/19/2012 10:48:51 AM · #586

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

12/19/2012 10:50:18 AM · #587

we have the right to bear arms, does it even say anything about "guns"?

edit: nope

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

just as grenade launchers are banned guns can be too. Give everyone stun guns if you want to protect your home.

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 10:53:04.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/19/2012 10:57:56 AM · #588

Get 'em today before they sell out. Got mine coming in the mail, I feel safer already.

12/19/2012 11:04:22 AM · #589

Originally posted by Venser:

Get 'em today before they sell out. Got mine coming in the mail, I feel safer already.

They need one you can climb into...

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

12/19/2012 11:06:12 AM · #590

Originally posted by Venser:

Get 'em today before they sell out. Got mine coming in the mail, I feel safer already.

why? we dont need them, i mean guns are safely in the hands of law abiding citizens. besides we should be arming the kids, not covering them in flak jackets. if everyone is armed there wont be anymore gun violence, right?

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/19/2012 11:07:22 AM · #591

Arm the teachers, bulletproof the kids.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/19/2012 11:10:37 AM · #592

Originally posted by Venser:

Arm the teachers, bulletproof the kids.

how about the lunch ladies can we arm them too?

hihosilver

Nikon D200

12/19/2012 11:11:26 AM · #593

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by JH:
BBC had an article about "how to tell your children" today. So I'm wondering, did any of you with young children told them about the shootings, and if so, how did you tell them without frightening them?

All three of my kids went straight to the internet the second they got home... for the Sandy Hook shooting, pets for sale and Minecraft, respectively.

My daughter's school is having a drill lockdown today (*sigh*). We just got a new pet who isn't a horse but eats like one. My kids LOVE Minecraft.

Hope your day today is a peaceful one...;-)

12/19/2012 11:13:39 AM · #594

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Venser:
Arm the teachers, bulletproof the kids.

how about the lunch ladies can we arm them too?

Maybe they can fling tater tots at the assailants, kill them with childhood obesity and cholesterol...

rooum

12/19/2012 11:14:05 AM · #595

Originally posted by Venser:

Get 'em today before they sell out. Got mine coming in the mail, I feel safer already.

Hey, those would look cool with these kids tops i posted about earlier. Definitely need little child sized guns to suit the ensemble though. Pink for girls-blue for boys; thats how the traditional family rolls!

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 11:14:57.

12/19/2012 11:15:24 AM · #596

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will.

Guns can kill. They can also be used to put holes in paper as a measure of skill. They can serve as a deterrent to crime. They are tools.

Not tools, weapons.

A dildo makes a great paperweight, etc....

Tools

12/19/2012 11:17:03 AM · #597

my daughter's school is having a play tomorrow, you now have to have a ticket to get into the school, everyone is only allowed three. due to recent events her grandparents cant go experience the joy of seeing her perform as well as others parents and grandparents. i was half tempted to let them go in my place becuase i know they love it but my daughter wants me to go. so instead of choosing who gets to go, i may just go by myself.

i get they want everyone to feel safe but at what point is it just dumb.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

12/19/2012 11:24:03 AM · #598

Originally posted by Spork99:

Tools

so why is it that cops and security guards those expected to keep peace and control are forced to use tasers and the population is allow to carry deadlier weapons.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

12/19/2012 11:24:13 AM · #599

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
the birth of the fighter plane

It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.

The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...

If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang...

That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc.

What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will.

Guns can kill. They can also be used to put holes in paper as a measure of skill. They can serve as a deterrent to crime. They are tools.

Not tools, weapons.

A dildo makes a great paperweight, etc....

Tools

A hammer is a tool. A dildo is a sex toy. A gun is a weapon.

Shall I define it for you?

"A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory."