Some of the guns he had were register to his mom.


Its so true blame tv shows for everything when they learn from their own home. Video games and all that is not to blame but than if they wanna blame it on that dont buy that game for the kid.

thedestroyer4 wrote: Some of the guns he had were register to his mom.


Its so true blame tv shows for everything when they learn from their own home. Video games and all that is not to blame but than if they wanna blame it on that dont buy that game for the kid.

I remeber when I was five it was so easy to find learning games that actually teach you.
Nowadays the game section is full of these Games that show how to kill and rob.

Luna6 wrote:

Kptn Singh wrote: I know whenever this happens their is gun debate but their is allways another debate or group that receives bad publicity and that is youth. I just had an argument with someone about their idea of outlawing guns to anyone under 50. really, you think people become angels after 50. I have seen 60 year olds show infantile behaviour and six year olds who are wise.

the whole video games are too blame thing is moot too. We all shoot here thru our planes but not one of us would shoot someone outsid of the game. In fact I think shooting games are healthy because they allow an outlet for rage. For all we know its the soccer moms who are harbouring rage n potential gun violence because they are not shooting 10,000 enemies a day on a game

I think the way that some parents who blame other things for behavior of children is stupid. It's like they consider TV and video games to be a "teaching tool" for children of which they learn all of their values and knowledge from. Of course, these things could be beneficial in a way, but it is up to the parents themselves to guide their children, not TV programs. So when a parent says that their child is learning violence by playing Call of Duty, I say that's someone who doesn't want to take responsibility.

Take the firearm debate, for example. How did young Adam Lanza get his hands on those weapons? Would restricting firearms to 50+ really solve the problem?

Banning guns in any way, shape or form would be absurd.....A gun is a tool without emotion. You might as well ban cars, rocks or baseball bats. Each if used in the wrong way can be dangerous. If guns were banned, do you think the bad guys would turn them in?
Guns can be very dangerous if used wrong. Thats why we need to teach our children properly. Remember it starts with us (the parents) Everything the parents do, reflects on the children...

i mean if we never allowed guns there would not be TO much gun truble. look at england so little gun violence. but would suddenly outlawing them help?? not everyone is going to turn in their guns. its a usless debate.

General jackson wrote:

Luna6 wrote:

Kptn Singh wrote: I know whenever this happens their is gun debate but their is allways another debate or group that receives bad publicity and that is youth. I just had an argument with someone about their idea of outlawing guns to anyone under 50. really, you think people become angels after 50. I have seen 60 year olds show infantile behaviour and six year olds who are wise.

the whole video games are too blame thing is moot too. We all shoot here thru our planes but not one of us would shoot someone outsid of the game. In fact I think shooting games are healthy because they allow an outlet for rage. For all we know its the soccer moms who are harbouring rage n potential gun violence because they are not shooting 10,000 enemies a day on a game

I think the way that some parents who blame other things for behavior of children is stupid. It's like they consider TV and video games to be a "teaching tool" for children of which they learn all of their values and knowledge from. Of course, these things could be beneficial in a way, but it is up to the parents themselves to guide their children, not TV programs. So when a parent says that their child is learning violence by playing Call of Duty, I say that's someone who doesn't want to take responsibility.

Take the firearm debate, for example. How did young Adam Lanza get his hands on those weapons? Would restricting firearms to 50+ really solve the problem?

Banning guns in any way, shape or form would be absurd.....A gun is a tool without emotion. You might as well ban cars, rocks or baseball bats. Each if used in the wrong way can be dangerous. If guns were banned, do you think the bad guys would turn them in?
Guns can be very dangerous if used wrong. Thats why we need to teach our children properly. Remember it starts with us (the parents) Everything the parents do, reflects on the children...

knee jerk reaction is to ban all guns but what should come under scrutiny are assault rifles. I mean in 40 years we might have lasers that you can just point n zap n wholesale slaughter, did the writers of the constitution have any idea of technology like that no, should something like that be covered under freedom to bear arms, NO

like the general said, everything is a potential weapon, however, we must draw the line on how far up the technological ladder are guns protected under the constitution and how far up do they become weapons of mass destruction. What these guys had on them shouldnt even be called guns, they should be called weapons of mass destruction. Only guns, the type davy crocket had should be covered under the constitution.

I hate this topic already, the general is right, for instance take alcohol - when children lost there lives we had an uproar then came Mothers against drunk driving, supported be government, oh yes our saviours. Poop. Did ya think people would stop drinking and driving, NOT, everyone does it. I ran background checks by mean of fingerprinting you. I've printed over 8500 people in 4yrs my self with a team of 8 personnel. 18% of those folks had a DUI, even if they were a cop once. We need to act, yes, learn why, understand why, solutions. Its just like the ignorant to go after the means of the tool chosen to commit the act, but fail to realize why it occurred then say we solved the problem. This is just a sad and terrible thing to of happened, but firearms is not the reason from which it occurred. Most school are under funded, there was no source of protection there at all. I grew up in MA. We had security there, during the day most doors are secured and can only be opened from the inside. I now live in Florida, all the schools I'm aware of have a resource office on site (deputy sheriff). How can we plan for further attacks on our children in schools going forward. That's what we should be focused on.

Kptn Singh wrote:

General jackson wrote:

Luna6 wrote:

Kptn Singh wrote: I know whenever this happens their is gun debate but their is allways another debate or group that receives bad publicity and that is youth. I just had an argument with someone about their idea of outlawing guns to anyone under 50. really, you think people become angels after 50. I have seen 60 year olds show infantile behaviour and six year olds who are wise.

the whole video games are too blame thing is moot too. We all shoot here thru our planes but not one of us would shoot someone outsid of the game. In fact I think shooting games are healthy because they allow an outlet for rage. For all we know its the soccer moms who are harbouring rage n potential gun violence because they are not shooting 10,000 enemies a day on a game

I think the way that some parents who blame other things for behavior of children is stupid. It's like they consider TV and video games to be a "teaching tool" for children of which they learn all of their values and knowledge from. Of course, these things could be beneficial in a way, but it is up to the parents themselves to guide their children, not TV programs. So when a parent says that their child is learning violence by playing Call of Duty, I say that's someone who doesn't want to take responsibility.

Take the firearm debate, for example. How did young Adam Lanza get his hands on those weapons? Would restricting firearms to 50+ really solve the problem?

Banning guns in any way, shape or form would be absurd.....A gun is a tool without emotion. You might as well ban cars, rocks or baseball bats. Each if used in the wrong way can be dangerous. If guns were banned, do you think the bad guys would turn them in?
Guns can be very dangerous if used wrong. Thats why we need to teach our children properly. Remember it starts with us (the parents) Everything the parents do, reflects on the children...

knee jerk reaction is to ban all guns but what should come under scrutiny are assault rifles. I mean in 40 years we might have lasers that you can just point n zap n wholesale slaughter, did the writers of the constitution have any idea of technology like that no, should something like that be covered under freedom to bear arms, NO

like the general said, everything is a potential weapon, however, we must draw the line on how far up the technological ladder are guns protected under the constitution and how far up do they become weapons of mass destruction. What these guys had on them shouldnt even be called guns, they should be called weapons of mass destruction. Only guns, the type davy crocket had should be covered under the constitution.

I will say one more thing pertaining to this subject....The incident that happened to this school is terrible. My prayers go out to all those that are affected. As far as the gun issue, the reason why our forefathers installed the "right to bear arms" etc...was that they knew that the "We the people" would need protection against a possible govt. that could get out of control. In the declaration for independance, it states the if the govt. goes too far, corrupt etc....that we can abolish the existing govt. and form another.The right to bear arms was a protection for us against a tyranical govt.....You may say " well England was who we fought against and that will not happen again"..........Any govt. of the world can go corrupt. Our forefathers designed our constitution so that it would keep our govt. from sinning...(fact)......the right to bear arms is a sort of last line of defence againt what i mentioned above....They dont really teach true patiotism, the trueth on the origins of the constitution, etc...in our so called history books....

I had to stop there, I could go on forever...lol....sorry if it is hard to understand. I was/am in a hurry..

the right to bear arms goes wh=ith the right to a well armed milita i think thats part of right to bear arms. that pertains to what gen said.

Hamers wrote: the right to bear arms goes wh=ith the right to a well armed milita i think thats part of right to bear arms. that pertains to what gen said.[/quot

Cant resist...one more thing....each state was to have a militia (which consisted of we the people)....not federalized. The right to bare arms was to be seperate and yet one in the same with the militia. The militia was a defense for that state and in time of war they would fight for the country...

Ok ok, I dragged this on too far...sorry...lol

Once again, you have to understand how; our country came to be, what we the people broke away from, and how far we will travel to stay to exercise our rights. We are free, free to act, free to speak, free to gather, and free to fight for the rights of we the people. There's no secret why the lessons aren't taught in public schools anymore...

Sometimes I think that young people are becoming ungrateful. America is the most advanced nation in the ENTIRE world. But what most people forget is that if you look at our neighboring countries, they don't get to have the things we have. Children don't always get to go to school. People are living in poverty. They don't have have a many rights that protect their freedom. Schools should teach children what hardships many people face around the world. Then maybe, most people will seemingly be grateful for the many luxuries that many people don't have the privilege to have.
-KingOfHearts#

Where i live there Are a lot of gang activity but most nonviolent.and about everyone has a form of self defense .my mom and dads workplace gets their air-conditioning system stolen about every summer .just for the copper.

This isn't like me but I am so glad that son of a b%#¥* is dead. Those poor kids ugh I'd hate to be those parents they must be heart broken. That is just ahhhhhhhhh so scary to think about. Some people were in the wrong place at wrong time. Lets have a moment of silence.














There. I think schools need protected more so we can preserve the youth of America.

canada is awsome
just sayin

They have us Justin Bieber well case closed. Booooooo him boooooooo!!!!!!!!

The striker16 wrote: They have us Justin Bieber well case closed. Booooooo him boooooooo!!!!!!!!

before this goes too far, this post is about the tragedy that killed 27people and not about Canada or justin bieber

All i can say about that man is "may he go to hell" and be miserable. I think hells too good for him, any other place thats worst.

I hope worse things happen to him.

sstrike he commedited suicide.......hes a Bitch ass coward.

All of the guns were registered to the mom.. I think it was her fault for not locking them up or securing them properly. My stomach turns at the thought of what happened. Very sad.

Please edit Jasta11.We do not want foul language on this forum.

My friends, I will have to respectfully disagree with most of you. There is a direct correlation between the gun murder rate within a country and whether those citizens have access to firearms. Banning firearms/changing the 2nd Amendment WOULD have an effect:

Let's look at the firearms homicide rate per 100,000 people, as reported by the Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, in 2005. Keep in mind though that these numbers are based mainly on surveys and reports by government agencies and subject to their reliability. In addition, the numbers may vary significantly due to changes in crime rate trends. The top ten countries with homicides as reported:

Country Homicide Rate by Firearms

1. El Salvador 50.36
2. Jamaica 47.44
3. Honduras 46.70
4. Guatemala 38.52
5. Swaziland 37.16
6. Colombia 27.10
7. Brazil 18.10
8. Panama 12.92
9. Mexico 10.00
10. Philipines 9.46

The US is ranked 18th with a rate of 2.98 firearms homicides per 100,000.

Now, let's take a look at the bottom 10 countries from the same report:

1. Japan 0.02
2. Poland 0.02
3. Azerbijan 0.04
4. South Korea 0.04
5. Romania 0.04
6. UK 0.04
7. Norway 0.04
8. Slovenia 0.05
9. Chile 0.06
10. Germany 0.06

These numbers by themselves do not prove or disprove that guns, or access to guns, alone, causes a higher homicide rate per se. The strength of Rule of Law in each of these countries can also be an important contributing factor. I live less that 2 hours from the Mexican border and am all too familiar with the effects the violence that the drug wars are causing its beleagured citizens. But the correlation bewtween the higher number of gun related homicides in the countries where personal ownership of firearms is either legal, or if illegal, easy to gain access to them, and those where personal ownership of firearms is illegal is staggering and cannot be ignored. To simply say that guns don't cause violence is a horrible understatement and is a poor attempt to simplify what is a complex issue.

I have lots of friends and know many others who are responsible gun owners. Hunting is a big time "sport" here in Texas, and I would never wish to take away anyone's hunting rifles. However, I do not see the need for personal ownership of handguns, assualt weapons, and ammunition designed to burst into pieces when it enters another human being. When the 2nd Amendment was written, you still had to hunt for your food, and the threat of attack on the frontier was very real. Also, Blacks were owned as property (counted as 3/5 of a person) and women were not allowed to vote when the 2nd Amendment was written. Times have changed, and our view of what the 2nd Amendment means in the 21st century needs to change to reflect the times as well.

Can i plz have the website u found this on, i am kinda interested.

Can i plz have the website u found this on, i am kinda interested. And there is a reason why we have that amendment, its for the well being of all the people. If the govt stops protecting us then we need something to protecourselves. It would help if they made it harder to buy guns. It is too easy to buy guns these days. Making them more expensive would help alot. Even though i am only 16 i have acess to a gun, if guns were expensive then my dad might only have one or 2 instead of 3, which would make it harder for me to access.

Well said bomber....education of proper handling starts with the parents....I have pistols, assult rifles etc and they are locked up. I have three children and they are taught about firearms. I would never leave firearms left out in the open for my children to get ahold of. But if they did, it would be because I as a parent was careless....As far as the second amendment is concerned it still is for today.....unless your a anti gun liberal....lol

My parents wont even let me touch a gun, but i know their hiding spot. I never really use it without his permission though. And as far as killing people, that was a freaky physio.

There an old saying outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

General jackson wrote: Well said bomber....education of proper handling starts with the parents....I have pistols, assult rifles etc and they are locked up. I have three children and they are taught about firearms. I would never leave firearms left out in the open for my children to get ahold of. But if they did, it would be because I as a parent was careless....As far as the second amendment is concerned it still is for today.....unless your a anti gun liberal....lol

guilty as charged! I do salute you though for being a responsible gun owner, and I hope that your kids never figure out how to get around your precautions.

bomer1 wrote: Can i plz have the website u found this on, i am kinda interested. And there is a reason why we have that amendment, its for the well being of all the people. If the govt stops protecting us then we need something to protecourselves. It would help if they made it harder to buy guns. It is too easy to buy guns these days. Making them more expensive would help alot. Even though i am only 16 i have acess to a gun, if guns were expensive then my dad might only have one or 2 instead of 3, which would make it harder for me to access.

Guns can be pretty expensive; as a licensed agent I make others know that their homeowners policies usually will only cover $1000 - $1500 worth, which is not really that much. For those who have multile weapons, or hunting rifles, that wont nearly be enough to cover one item most likely. I know some of my friends that are collectors have 30, 40, 50 and even more.

Here is the link where I compiled the information: www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html.

maranatha wrote: There an old saying outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

There's some truth to that. Don't think that the 2nd Amendment is going away any time soon, but there's something about our society that needs to take stock of where we're at as a nation, and how we view guns.