Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting

[Saggy Aggie]

I'm not saying it was a hoax, but this guys makes a pretty good case...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358328844

[DKfromDUB]

This is creepy...

Any of you ever seen "V for Vendetta"?

It makes you wonder how far our leaders would go for "Change"

[BEAST]

I have watched that video and others like it. I dont know what to make of them. It is disturbing at the least.




BEAST

[defense51]

It sure makes you go hmmmm...

[Ernest T Bass]

And Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Come on, man!

[Eagle 1]

This is creepy...

Any of you ever seen "V for Vendetta"?

It makes you wonder how far our leaders would go for "Change"

X2

I couldn't get the video to work, but I suspect the video is something that many Americans as myself have already pondered.

[bobcat1]

I watched a few days ago and it sure leaves some questions unanswered like why was the gun found in the trunk of the car if it was the weapon used to kill all those kids? Why was someone else arrested after a foot chase by police? Lots of questions...... I don't trust our current government.

[DKfromDUB]

I watched a few days ago and it sure leaves some questions unanswered like why was the gun found in the trunk of the car if it was the weapon used to kill all those kids? Why was someone else arrested after a foot chase by police? Lots of questions...... I don't trust our current government.


Right... and why was the girl that was supposed to be killed taking a picture with The President a few days later?

[Old Tiger]

And Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Come on, man!

that is true

[DKfromDUB]

And Bush was responsible for 9/11.
Come on, man!

I think they might have let it happen...

[cougartino]

This is the same crap Michael Morer(?) does. Splice footage and make wild assumptions. They said the same thing about Jesus but to this day, no one has ever produced a body. If this were a hoax then produce the kids. I'm sure grieving parents would love to see them again. People were killed yet every Dick, Tom, and Harry is looking for their 15 minutes.

[Saggy Aggie]

Like I said, I'm not saying it was a hoax... But there are a LOT of red flags.

I do have a hard time believing you could create this big of a coverup though

[44INAROW]

. I don't trust our current government.

What he said!

[pirate4state]

Like I said, I'm not saying it was a hoax... But there are a LOT of red flags.

I do have a hard time believing you could create this big of a coverup though

The truth is out there..............

[Macarthur]

I watched a few days ago and it sure leaves some questions unanswered like why was the gun found in the trunk of the car if it was the weapon used to kill all those kids? Why was someone else arrested after a foot chase by police? Lots of questions...... I don't trust our current government.

Which previous government did you trust?

[bobcat1]

Which previous government did you trust?

The one before 2008 and back.

[bp80884]

The one before 2008 and back.

Anyone who does not trust the government is always free to leave.

Most countries need more idiots and the USA apparently has a few to spare!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[poisoned10]

I'm not saying it was a hoax, but this guys makes a pretty good case...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358328844

Everyone should read this also.


http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/16lkhq/this_sandy_hook_conspiracy_video_has_been_making/

[Eagle 1]

I finally got the video to work. The video doesn't say this is a hoax, but rather there are a lot of red flags. Like I said, I caught on to some of them before this video was done.

[defense51]

Anyone who does not trust the government is always free to leave.

Most countries need more idiots and the USA apparently has a few to spare!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So, do you honestly trust the US government and the politicians running it?

[bobcat1]

Anyone who does not trust the government is always free to leave.

Most countries need more idiots and the USA apparently has a few to spare!


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

[defense51]

Yep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

Well said bobcat1

[Buff42]

How disrespectful to these families, from a self-admitted gun nut.

[Macarthur]

The one before 2008 and back.

So your position is that our government was trustworthy prior to BHO being elected?

[DKfromDUB]

Yep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

:iagree:

[marler1972]

Right... and why was the girl that was supposed to be killed taking a picture with The President a few days later?

That is because the family picture was from 2 yrs ago. And the younger sister was wearing the dress in the picture with the President.

[bp80884]

Yep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

Well you have that right and you also have the right to be "Rednecked". I think the conspiracy theories people come up with is a waste of time, resources and shows no respect for the 20 kids who were killed. If you believe those kids did not deserve the respect and compassion that people are offering and want to put idiotic ideas out there to stir the pot then by all means, Continue to be a "Redneck" and I'll continue to be realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saggy Aggie]

That is because the family picture was from 2 yrs ago. And the younger sister was wearing the dress in the picture with the President.

Looks awful lot like emilie. Like so much so that you can't see any difference between the two.

Hard for me to believe that those are 2 different people but its possible. I don't know what to make of all of it to be honest

[bp80884]

Looks awful lot like emilie. Like so much so that you can't see any difference between the two.

Hard for me to believe that those are 2 different people but its possible. I don't know what to make of all of it to be honest

I think Manti Teo's girlfriend actually dated Adam Lanza and was one of those "additional" shooters the police was chasing!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobcat1]

Well you have that right and you also have the right to be "Rednecked". I think the conspiracy theories people come up with is a waste of time, resources and shows no respect for the 20 kids who were killed. If you believe those kids did not deserve the respect and compassion that people are offering and want to put idiotic ideas out there to stir the pot then by all means, Continue to be a "Redneck" and I'll continue to be realistic.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIf you are a realist, how do you answer the questions I asked? Sounds like you may just be another sheep:rolleyes:. Reread what I said; evidently comprehension is not your strong suit.


I watched a few days ago and it sure leaves some questions unanswered like why was the gun found in the trunk of the car if it was the weapon used to kill all those kids? Why was someone else arrested after a foot chase by police? Lots of questions...... I don't trust our current government.

If the AR-15 was used how did it get back in the trunk of the car? Answer that for me ol' sage realist?

[Macarthur]

There are dozens of articles and videos debunking these 'questions'?

[Eagle 1]

A retired military buddy of mine can confirm that is an AR15 removed from the trunk of the car.
Here is what he said:


It was reported on the news that several officials said the AR15 was left in the car.

Nobody knows what caliber it was. A .458 SOCOM round is as big as a 12 guage round. .50 Beowolf....there's many big caliber AR15 uppers.

There are also AR uppers with bolts sticking out the side from the main bolt. Usually on National Match uppers where they don't use the gas system to cycle the rifle. People who sometimes use sub-sonic ammo when they run silencers also use these bolts:


http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/img-45451.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6QVRmZAmGuw4lnbXIptm7i_UrQF6mr bLRaTFdPZFiKDgTPW8sg_lEryF7

http://www.phase5tactical.com/_common/_core/server/svr-image.asp?fle=ftp/product-images/V2-SC.JPG&maxw=347


I own an AR15 upper with a manual bolt installed, for when I'm using subsonic ammo to go quiet with the silencer. The subsonic ammo won't cycle the action, I have to manually cycle it when I run that low powered stuff.

That's an AR. Not a shotgun.

[Macarthur]

A retired military buddy of mine can confirm that is an AR15 removed from the trunk of the car.
Here is what he said:

Can you show me this 'confirmation'?

[Eagle 1]

Can you show me this 'confirmation'?

This is not proof enough for you?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=d2f6dc3d61fd72ef48d01980d6bfec29&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fvets.yuku.com%2Ftopic%2F91951%2FN Y-becomes-first-state-to-enact-stricter-gun-control-laws%3Fpage%3D2&v=1&libid=1358529689769&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefirearmblog.com%2Fblog%2Fw p-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Fimg-45451.jpg&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fvets.yuku.com%2Fforums%2F87&title=NY%20becomes%20first%20state%20to%20enact%20 stricter%20gun%20control%20laws%20in%20Social%20Ch at%20Forum&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefirearmblog.com%2Fblog%2Fw p-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F02%2Fimg-45451.jpg&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13585297206826

[Macarthur]

That was the gun taken out of the car?

[Macarthur]

I am no gun expert, but that film from the helicopter seemed really inconclusive to me as to what kind of gun that was. I think if you think it's a shotgun, it probably looks like a shotgun. If you think it's an AR, then it probably looks like an AR to you.

Unless, I just missed it (I was watching at work so not 100% focused) I couldn't tell what type of gun that was.

[Eagle 1]

That was the gun taken out of the car?

Let me see if I can make this clear.
Some are saying the gun removed from the trunk of the car is a shotgun because it is a bolt action gun because you can see the officer unloading the gun from a bolt action lever.

I'll explain in more detail since you are probably not familiar with how a semi-automatic AR works.
Normally, after the round in a semi-auto AR15 is fired, the shell casing ejects from the side of the upper receiver. In the picture I posted, that would be "knob"that is sticking out of the bolt. With this type of AR in the picture, the shooter would have to pull the knob back in order to eject the shell casing.

So basically, the arguement that the gun removed from the trunk is shotgun doesn't hold water since there are AR's that have bolt action receivers.
A retired military person or somebody who is a gun person would know this. Your average citizens wouldn't know the difference. In fact, I would say that a majority of Americans never ever heard of 30 round mags until all of this unfolded.

[Macarthur]

Let me see if I can make this clear.
Some are saying the gun removed from the trunk of the car is a shotgun because it is a bolt action gun because you can see the officer unloading the gun from a bolt action lever.

I'll explain in more detail since you are probably not familiar with how a semi-automatic AR works.
Normally, after the round in a semi-auto AR15 is fired, the shell casing ejects from the side of the upper receiver. In the picture I posted, that would be "knob" is sticking out of the bolt. With this type of AR in the picture, the shooter would have to pull the knob back in order to eject the shell casing.

So basically, the arguement that the gun removed from the trunk is shotgun doesn't hold water since there are AR's that have bolt action receivers.
A retired military person or somebody who is a gun person would know this. Your average citizens wouldn't know the difference. In fact, I would say that a majority of Americans never ever heard of 30 round mags until all of this unfolded.

I'm no gun expert but I do follow what you are saying. I guess my question is, I'd like to research this further than (no offense) your retired military buddy. You said 'several officials' said it was an AR. Who are these officials and where can I read their comments?

[Saggy Aggie]

There are dozens of articles and videos debunking these 'questions'?

And what makes those videos or articles any more credible than the conspiracy theory video or the original news reports?

[Macarthur]

And what makes those videos or articles any more credible than the conspiracy theory video or the original news reports?

YOu're kidding right?

[Eagle 1]

I'm no gun expert but I do follow what you are saying. I guess my question is, I'd like to research this further than (no offense) your retired military buddy. You said 'several officials' said it was an AR. Who are these officials and where can I read their comments?

I never said "several officials" said it was an AR.
Im not sure what you are talking about.

[Macarthur]

I never said "several officials" said it was an AR.
Im not sure what you are talking about.

This was from your post #32

It was reported on the news that several officials said the AR15 was left in the car.

[Eagle 1]

This was from your post #32

It was reported on the news that several officials said the AR15 was left in the car.

I see what you asking....I think.
He was refering to the media on the day of the shooting. I seen it too as it unfolded. It was reported by the law enforcement on site that an AR was found in the trunk of the car. There were several videos that day. Here are a few:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5of8_bushmaster-223-rifle-found-in-trunk-of-car-cnn-reports-impossible-but-true_news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

[Eagle 1]

If you have a couple of hours to kill, here is a video link of the police response to the Sandy Hook shootings as it unfolded.
It's pretty eerie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETkrxfYoQtc

[Macarthur]

I see what you asking....I think.
He was refering to the media on the day of the shooting. I seen it too as it unfolded. It was reported by the law enforcement on site that an AR was found in the trunk of the car. There were several videos that day. Here are a few:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5of8_bushmaster-223-rifle-found-in-trunk-of-car-cnn-reports-impossible-but-true_news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

I've seen reports that claim the firearm in the trunk is a Saiga shotgun.

[Macarthur]

Here's a pretty good article that addresses the main points of the conspiracy theory.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_cons piracy_theory/

[Eagle 1]

The video link is not a conspiracy theory.
It is asking legitimate red flag questions.

[Macarthur]

The video link is not a conspiracy theory.
It is asking legitimate red flag questions.

Those questions have been answered, IMO.

[Eagle 1]

Then you acknowledge that it is not a conspiracy theory?

[Macarthur]

Then you acknowledge that it is not a conspiracy theory?

Well, we're playing word symantics here. Isn't easy to throw out all these questions, never answer them, and then when they are answered just step back with your hands up and say 'hey, I'm just bringing up these things.' Plausible deniabilty, huh?

It comes across, to me, as very disingeniuous.

[Eagle 1]

Well, we're playing word symantics here. Isn't easy to throw out all these questions, never answer them, and then when they are answered just step back with your hands up and say 'hey, I'm just bringing up these things.' Plausible deniabilty, huh?

It comes across, to me, as very disingeniuous.

Your the one who said it was a conspiracy theory, which it's not.
I never said "hey I'm just bringing up these things."

[Macarthur]

Your the one who said it was a conspiracy theory, which it's not.
I never said "hey I'm just bringing up these things."

OKay, YOU didn't say that, but it's pretty clear that the implication of going to all that trouble to bring up all these 'questions' and produce a video is to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy, coverup or ulterior motive of those in power. Agree?

What other motive would there be?

[panfan]

question for both of you: Why does this matter? 20 people are dead and a gunman who did the killing is dead.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.

Are not many of these types of issues cyclic? This recent shooting may have been impetus for this latet effort to ban these weapons, but its been there just under the surface since 2004 when the ban expired.

[Eagle 1]

OKay, YOU didn't say that, but it's pretty clear that the implication of going to all that trouble to bring up all these 'questions' and produce a video is to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy, coverup or ulterior motive of those in power. Agree?

What other motive would there be?

I'm not sure what the motive was of who ever posted the original video link. Like many other posters on this thread, I was responding and giving my two cents. Why you singled out my post is unclear, but I have my suspicions. None the less, many of the red flags I seen in the original post video are some of the things I noticed before the video link was provided. Just because people are asking questions about a mass shooting that is on the brink of changing our second amendment rights, does not mean there is an ulterior motive. We live in a country where such freedoms have been fought and protected by veterans for more than 200 years. I'll remind you, this is not Russia.....yet.

[Macarthur]

I'm not sure what the motive was of who ever posted the original video link. Like many other posters on this thread, I was responding and giving my two cents. Why you singled out my post is unclear, but I have my suspicions. None the less, many of the red flags I seen in the original post video are some of the things I noticed before the video link was provided. Just because people are asking questions about a mass shooting that is on the brink of changing our second amendment rights, does not mean there is an ulterior motive. We live in a country where such freedoms have been fought and protected by veterans for more than 200 years. I'll remind you, this is not Russia.....yet.

:(

Come on, dude. There is a big diff in people like yourself 'asking questions' and the folks that produce these videos. These info wars folks are the same people that still think bush was behind 9/11.

And dont imply that I think no one should ever question authority because thats not true. The harm is not in bringing up questions. The problem is when these 'questions' have been answered over and over again, the goalposts keep getting moved (I.e., 9/11, jkf and now sandy hook).

[Emerson1]

I heard Obama is pushing to repeal the law that only allows two terms of four years.

[Eagle 1]

I've seen reports that claim the firearm in the trunk is a Saiga shotgun.

Thats still a semi-automatic assault rifle. There are no bolt hand action Saiga shotguns (which you can see in the video that this a bolt hand action rifle that the officer was unloading).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Saiga-12_small.jpg/300px-Saiga-12_small.jpg

The Saiga-12 is a 12-gauge combat shotgun available in a wide range of configurations, visually patterned after the Kalashnikov series of assault rifles. Like the Kalashnikov rifle variants, it is a rotating bolt, gas-operated gun that feeds from a box magazine. All Saiga-12 configurations are recognizable as Kalashnikov-pattern guns by the large lever-safety on the right side of the receiver, the optic mounting rail on the left side of the receiver and the large top-mounted dust cover held in place by the rear of the recoil spring assembly.

The looser tolerances of AK-style designs result in high reliability—an enormous boon on a semi-automatic shotgun, as this class of weapon had previously tended towards unreliability.

The Saiga-12 is manufactured by the arms division of Izhmash, in Russia. It was previously imported into the US by European American Armories, although their agreement expired in 2005 and Izhmash then began exporting through the Russian-American Armory Company. The current export import partner is Wolf Performance Arms.[1] Izhmash also manufactures Saiga 20's and Saiga 410's in 20-gauge and .410 bore, as well as the Saiga semi-automatic hunting rifles in a number of centerfire calibers.

[DKfromDUB]

I heard Obama is pushing to repeal the law that only allows two terms of four years.

I heard there is a bill in the works to make that happen.

also... Emerson1, you need to go to syj.com and get the new 5 star logo.

[Macarthur]

Thats still a semi-automatic assault rifle. There are no bolt hand action Saiga shotguns (which you can see in the video that this a bolt hand action rifle that the officer was unloading).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Saiga-12_small.jpg/300px-Saiga-12_small.jpg

The Saiga-12 is a 12-gauge combat shotgun available in a wide range of configurations, visually patterned after the Kalashnikov series of assault rifles. Like the Kalashnikov rifle variants, it is a rotating bolt, gas-operated gun that feeds from a box magazine. All Saiga-12 configurations are recognizable as Kalashnikov-pattern guns by the large lever-safety on the right side of the receiver, the optic mounting rail on the left side of the receiver and the large top-mounted dust cover held in place by the rear of the recoil spring assembly.

The looser tolerances of AK-style designs result in high reliability—an enormous boon on a semi-automatic shotgun, as this class of weapon had previously tended towards unreliability.

The Saiga-12 is manufactured by the arms division of Izhmash, in Russia. It was previously imported into the US by European American Armories, although their agreement expired in 2005 and Izhmash then began exporting through the Russian-American Armory Company. The current export import partner is Wolf Performance Arms.[1] Izhmash also manufactures Saiga 20's and Saiga 410's in 20-gauge and .410 bore, as well as the Saiga semi-automatic hunting rifles in a number of centerfire calibers.

Right but thats not whats being claimed by the video. The video is claiming that it was the AR that was, in the videos words, supposedly used in the school that was in the trunk. Therefore it could not be the weapon used in the school. And I think, based on the informatikn we have, wrong and potentially irresponsible of them to imply.

[Macarthur]

question for both of you: Why does this matter? 20 people are dead and a gunman who did the killing is dead.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.

Are not many of these types of issues cyclic? This recent shooting may have been impetus for this latet effort to ban these weapons, but its been there just under the surface since 2004 when the ban expired.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going.

As Best I can tell, you asked two questions:
1. Why does this matter? - I assume you're talking about why it matters as it relates to this video. My answer to that would be that if, for the most part, this story is as it has been presented (one troubled kid takes him mom's guns and mows down kids) then this type of video is potentially very irresponsible in how it stokes the fires of those that want to paint everything of this nature as some big government conspiracy to somehow enslave the populous.

2. Are not these types of issues cyclic? Um, yes, I guess. There's no doubt that when these things happen, it stokes the fire on both sides of the issue. I just think this one is somewhat unique in that it was almost exclusively little kids which makes the emotions that much stronger.

[Eagle 1]

Right but thats not whats being claimed by the video. The video is claiming that it was the AR that was, in the videos words, supposedly used in the school that was in the trunk. Therefore it could not be the weapon used in the school. And I think, based on the informatikn we have, wrong and potentially irresponsible of them to imply.

Do you not understand that a Saiga shotgun IS AN ASSUALT RIFLE?
Your the one who said you heard it was a Saiga shotgun found in the trunk of the car.
Therefore, anybody can conclude that an assault rifle weapon (despite make, type, or caliber) was found in the trunk.

[panfan]

By this I was refering to the discussion between you and Eagle - rifle or shotgun? Does it matter? Maybe - but in the larger scheme of things - not really. This is not the first go around with bans or attempted bans on assult style weapons.

[Macarthur]

Do you not understand that a Saiga shotgun IS AN ASSUALT RIFLE?
Your the one who said you heard it was a Saiga shotgun found in the trunk of the car.
Therefore, anybody can conclude that an assault rifle weapon (despite make, type, or caliber) was found in the trunk.

Yes, I understand what it is.

You're missing my point. My point is the video is trying to make the case that it was the AR semi-automatic that was in the trunk. That is not the case.

[Macarthur]

By this I was refering to the discussion between you and Eagle - rifle or shotgun? Does it matter? Maybe - but in the larger scheme of things - not really. This is not the first go around with bans or attempted bans on assult style weapons.

No it doesn't really matter with regards to dead kids.

However, it does matter in how the debate is framed and you can't lie about the situation and expect to have a debate in good faith.

[speedbump]

Yep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

How did I vote?

[Emerson1]

I heard there is a bill in the works to make that happen.

also... Emerson1, you need to go to syj.com and get the new 5 star logo.

I don't care enough to change it.

[Eagle 1]

Yes, I understand what it is.

You're missing my point. My point is the video is trying to make the case that it was the AR semi-automatic that was in the trunk. That is not the case.

I'm sure you understand that now that I pointed it out to you, otherwise why else you have even brought it up that you heard it was Saiga shotgun that was found in the trunk?
The corenor said it was the "long rifle that was used in the killings."
So how is that possible if the "long rifle" (assault weapon) was found in the trunk?
Like most Americans, I suspect you really don't understand the difference in assualt weapons and their use; yet you want to determine what kind of gun us law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to own.

[Macarthur]

I'm sure you understand that now that I pointed it out to you, otherwise why else you have even brought it up that you heard it was Saiga shotgun that was found in the trunk?
The corenor said it was the "long rifle that was used in the killings."
So how is that possible if the "long rifle" (assault weapon) was found in the trunk?
Like most Americans, I suspect you really don't understand the difference in assualt weapons and their use; yet you want to determine what kind of gun us law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to own.

First of all, stop making assumptions about me and my beliefs. I have no issue with you owning guns. This is the biggest problem with the discussion is the fear that someone wants to confiscate your guns and eat your babies.

[Macarthur]

I'm sure you understand that now that I pointed it out to you, otherwise why else you have even brought it up that you heard it was Saiga shotgun that was found in the trunk?
The corenor said it was the "long rifle that was used in the killings."
So how is that possible if the "long rifle" (assault weapon) was found in the trunk?
Like most Americans, I suspect you really don't understand the difference in assualt weapons and their use; yet you want to determine what kind of gun us law-abiding gun owners should be allowed to own.


And there were 3 guns found in the school, including the ar15. The shotgun was not taken in.

[Macarthur]

Please read the article I posted.

[Eagle 1]

Please read the article I posted.

What makes your source any more reliable than the open media?

[bp80884]

How many of you rocket scientists who are making these claims have inside information about the actual investigation?

I've heard about a "military buddy", a gun expert and too many people's opinions about something they are so far disconnected from that they would have no clue about what the reality is.

At the end of the day, trust who you want to trust and regardless of what side you're on the other side's opinion will be different.

My opinion is that if you think the government is part of a conspiracy theory you should have your head checked.

I have the faith that the authorities will follow through on an investigation and will do what needs to be done to deal with the facts and the government will do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent these situations from happening again.

If that is outlawing all firearms, I'm for it. It that is arming every Tom, Dick and Harry, then I'm for that as well. WHATEVER WORKS!!!

Finally, I won't sit here and think about kookie idiotic BS cause I have the free time to do it. If that is how you spend your time, I am glad I do not personally know you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bp80884]

Yep and I am free to stay and listen to your drivel. I'm 56 years old and still just as rednecked American as I have ever been. Because I don't trust our government is not a reason for you to pop off and call me or anyone that thinks like me an idiot. I suspect I know how you voted. Idiot indeed.

I just have to ask, which part of my message said or implied that I called you an idiot?

I made a statement about the fact that we have plenty of idiots to spare in the USA and you were offended.

[Macarthur]

What makes your source any more reliable than the open media?

You said you thought the questions brought up by thw video are good ones. Am I correct in that?

If you legitimately want answers, they're there for you to find.

[Eagle 1]

How many of you rocket scientists who are making these claims have inside information about the actual investigation?

I've heard about a "military buddy", a gun expert and too many people's opinions about something they are so far disconnected from that they would have no clue about what the reality is.

At the end of the day, trust who you want to trust and regardless of what side you're on the other side's opinion will be different.

My opinion is that if you think the government is part of a conspiracy theory you should have your head checked.

I have the faith that the authorities will follow through on an investigation and will do what needs to be done to deal with the facts and the government will do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent these situations from happening again.

If that is outlawing all firearms, I'm for it. It that is arming every Tom, Dick and Harry, then I'm for that as well. WHATEVER WORKS!!!

Finally, I won't sit here and think about kookie idiotic BS cause I have the free time to do it. If that is how you spend your time, I am glad I do not personally know you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, nobody said it was government conspiracy. Red flags were raised and Americans want answers.

Outlawing guns in America wont happen. If somebody wants to come take my guns then feel free to do so.
However, there are a couple things you should know about me.
I'm too am a retired military man.
I have always qualified as an expert shooter.
I have trained military personal from all over the world in Basic Markmanships Instruction (BMI) with an M16, M1911 Colt 45, and the Beretta M9 Military 9MM Pistol.
So, yea I'm a pretty damn good shot.

[Macarthur]

BTW, here's the details on the guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

[Eagle 1]

BTW, here's the details on the guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

This what was reported by ny daily news.



Wearing a military-style vest, Adam Lanza killed his mother at their house, then stormed into Sandy Hook Elementary School carrying a Glock 9 mm handgun, a SIG Sauer handgun, killing 26 people, including 20 children, before turning the gun on himself.

The two pistols were found inside the school and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle was found in the back of his mother's car in the parking lot.

"The damage these weapons can do is just horrific," firearms expert Ronald Scott said.

All three are highly lethal weapons manufactured for combat and to stop criminals. The semi-automatic Glock and SIG Sauer are the two most popular firearms used by law enforcement officers around the country and by private gun owners, said Scott.



And now the media is saying something totally different.
Imagine that.
My conclusion is I doubt we will really ever know the complete truth.

[Macarthur]

Eagle, many outlets have admitted that they got many of the details wrong in early reports.

Actually I think if you will read a few reports now, they have a pretty good handle on what happened.

[Eagle 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

[Macarthur]

Thats your answer to cnn?

[bobcat1]

I just have to ask, which part of my message said or implied that I called you an idiot?

I made a statement about the fact that we have plenty of idiots to spare in the USA and you were offended.

Here is what you said:
Anyone who does not trust the government is always free to leave.

Most countries need more idiots and the USA apparently has a few to spare!
I guess you didn't specifically call me an idiot but unless you are crawfishing you know what you implied, right? Man up or go home.

[bobcat1]

Eagle, many outlets have admitted that they got many of the details wrong in early reports.

Actually I think if you will read a few reports now, they have a pretty good handle on what happened.

That was the whole purpose of the original video, to ask questions because things were not adding up. Do you and the China Spring poster get it? I personally wanted clarification. If it was a conspiracy I think there would be a war here on our soil. I believe the folks with guns would win against the ones with posters wanting to outlaw guns. JMO

[speedbump]

That was the whole purpose of the original video, to ask questions because things were not adding up. Do you and the China Spring poster get it? I personally wanted clarification. If it was a conspiracy I think there would be a war here on our soil. I believe the folks with guns would win against the ones with posters wanting to outlaw guns. JMO

If it were a conspiracy, who do you think would be behind it?

[Old Tiger]

If it were a conspiracy, who do you think would be behind it?

Illuminati or Masons

[bobcat1]

If it were a conspiracy, who do you think would be behind it?

:thinking:It would have to be a group with an agenda wouldn't you think?

[speedbump]

:thinking:It would have to be a group with an agenda wouldn't you think?

That's why I asked. Trying to find out which group you think it is.

[bobcat1]

That's why I asked. Trying to find out which group you think it is.

I don't think it was any group, I just said IF it was.

[Macarthur]

That was the whole purpose of the original video, to ask questions because things were not adding up. Do you and the Chicago Spring poster get it? I personally wanted clarification. If it was a conspiracy I think there would be a war here on our soil. I believe the folks with guns would win against the ones with posters wanting to outlaw guns. JMO

But thats the thing. Things didnt add up because it was a chaotic situation and new outlets and the twitter world we all trying to get information out quickly so accuracy was not what it shoukd have been. That video has been deemed obsolete now. But based on what eagle's buddy was saying it appears there are quite a few americans that still think something doesnt smaelk right, even when the most logical explanation for everything is just a google away.

[Macarthur]

And if you think the folks that did this video are just regular folks with questions, you are either naive or your not being honest. There is a clear purpose behind this.

[Saggy Aggie]

At least this thread has kept me entertained so far this off season

[bp80884]

Here is what you said:
I guess you didn't specifically call me an idiot but unless you are crawfishing you know what you implied, right? Man up or go home.

"Man up or go home"? Dude, you are on a message board. What the hell are you talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saggy Aggie]

"Man up or go home"? Dude, you are on a message board. What the hell are you talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ill take a stab at what he's saying:

He's saying you indirectly called him an idiot and then tried to deny it. It was obvious to everyone, just accept it and don't try to act like you didn't?

[Saggy Aggie]

Double post

[bobcat1]

Ill take a stab at what he's saying:

He's saying you indirectly called him an idiot and then tried to deny it. It was obvious to everyone, just accept it and don't try to act like you didn't?

This

[bp80884]

Ill take a stab at what he's saying:

He's saying you indirectly called him an idiot and then tried to deny it. It was obvious to everyone, just accept it and don't try to act like you didn't?

No, the discussion moved on to his attempt to bully on a message board (Man up or move on).

If he feels like I called him or anyone else on this board an idiot he is incorrect. I made a statement that we have plenty here in the USA and he made an association to himself. However, with each reply (IMO) you are proving my theory.

[bobcat1]

No, the discussion moved on to his attempt to bully on a message board (Man up or move on).

If he feels like I called him or anyone else on this board an idiot he is incorrect. I made a statement that we have plenty here in the USA and he made an association to himself. However, with each reply (IMO) you are proving my theory.

I see you chose to not man up. When caught man up and fess up. You were caught, not just by me, yet you continue to crawfish. You left out apparently which left the implication dangling. You're slick but in the end trapped like a rat. I'm done with you now. Click the link in my signature and insert Bobby for Johnny.

[Eagle 1]

But thats the thing. Things didnt add up because it was a chaotic situation and new outlets and the twitter world we all trying to get information out quickly so accuracy was not what it shoukd have been. That video has been deemed obsolete now. But based on what eagle's buddy was saying it appears there are quite a few americans that still think something doesnt smaelk right, even when the most logical explanation for everything is just a google away.

So what you are saying is if it's on the internet now, then it has to be true?
The video showed specific live footages that have no answers. It's your freedom to choose as you believe, just as it's my freedom to question certain unanswered details.
Here a question that hasn't been asked. If you go to video link, it is a live radio traffic recording of the whole incident.
If you fast foward to 9:55:26 seconds, the police officer says "we have multiple weapons including 1 rifle and 1 shotgun".
So how is that possible if the police have't removed the shotgun from the trunk of the car at that time?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ETkrxfYoQtc

[Macarthur]

Eagle, the answers are there. You a either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. Im not going to spoon feed it to you. If you truly want to know the answers, they're right at your fingertips.

[Eagle 1]

Eagle, the answers are there. You a either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. Im not going to spoon feed it to you. If you truly want to know the answers, they're right at your fingertips.
What makes you think I am asking you?

[DKfromDUB]

At least this thread has kept me entertained so far this off season

Bingo:iagree:

[Macarthur]

What makes you think I am asking you?

ok..

[Ranger Mom]

Ill take a stab at what he's saying:

He's saying you indirectly called him an idiot and then tried to deny it. It was obvious to everyone, just accept it and don't try to act like you didn't?

It was obvious to me!! I agree with you on something else to.....this has been an entertaining thread!!

Thanks to the downlow, I have discovered that men are a LOT more anal and argumentative....and whinier....than women!! :taunt:

[Eagle 1]

It was obvious to me!! I agree with you on something else to.....this has been an entertaining thread!!

Thanks to the downlow, I have discovered that men are a LOT more anal and argumentative....and whinier....than women!! :taunt:

She must be talking about you Mac. :p

[bp80884]

I see you chose to not man up. When caught man up and fess up. You were caught, not just by me, yet you continue to crawfish. You left out apparently which left the implication dangling. You're slick but in the end trapped like a rat. I'm done with you now. Click the link in my signature and insert Bobby for Johnny.

Hmmm, ok McFly! Now I have solidified my personal opinion!

However, I never indirectly referred to anyone on this board as an idiot. You inference (IMO) is off the mark and that is where you are mistaken. But infer whatever you want, I am comfortable with my comment and it still stands. We have many idiots in this country! If you disagree than maybe you should be a politician!

[bobcat1]

It was obvious to me!! I agree with you on something else to.....this has been an entertaining thread!!

Thanks to the downlow, I have discovered that men are a LOT more anal and argumentative....and whinier....than women!! :taunt:

Good to see you on here again:2thumbsup and I am glad you see it the same way Saggy Aggie and I saw it too.

[Farmersfan]

How many of you rocket scientists who are making these claims have inside information about the actual investigation?

I've heard about a "military buddy", a gun expert and too many people's opinions about something they are so far disconnected from that they would have no clue about what the reality is.

At the end of the day, trust who you want to trust and regardless of what side you're on the other side's opinion will be different.

My opinion is that if you think the government is part of a conspiracy theory you should have your head checked.

I have the faith that the authorities will follow through on an investigation and will do what needs to be done to deal with the facts and the government will do whatever they feel is necessary to prevent these situations from happening again.

If that is outlawing all firearms, I'm for it. It that is arming every Tom, Dick and Harry, then I'm for that as well. WHATEVER WORKS!!!

Finally, I won't sit here and think about kookie idiotic BS cause I have the free time to do it. If that is how you spend your time, I am glad I do not personally know you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



There is a serious ironic twist to this comment. You call other people idiots because they don't trust the government to do things "that work" when the government has a long, long, long history of doing things that DON'T WORK! Your belief in the government is completely unfounded and yet you call others idiots! Hilarious!

[Ranger Mom]

Good to see you on here again:2thumbsup and I am glad you see it the same way Saggy Aggie and I saw it too.

I am actually around quite a bit.....just a lurker more than a poster these days!!

[bobcat1]

I am actually around quite a bit.....just a lurker more than a poster these days!!Is that kinda like a peeping tom or a voyeur? That's kinda hot. :p

[speedbump]

There is a serious ironic twist to this comment. You call other people idiots because they don't trust the government to do things "that work" when the government has a long, long, long history of doing things that DON'T WORK! Your belief in the government is completely unfounded and yet you call others idiots! Hilarious!


The things that work don't get the attention the failures get. They are taken for granted and forgotten about. If you need proof that the government gets it right far more than they get it wrong,look around, you live in the greatest country on earth.

[BEAST]

The things that work don't get the attention the failures get. They are taken for granted and forgotten about. If you need proof that the government gets it right far more than they get it wrong,look around, you live in the greatest country on earth.

The Gov't did not make it that way, the free people did.




BEAST

[speedbump]

The Gov't did not make it that way, the free people did.
BEAST

LOL -Haven't you heard? The people ARE the government.

[Eagle 1]

LOL -Haven't you heard? The people ARE the government.

That depends on your political affiliation.

[defense51]

The things that work don't get the attention the failures get. They are taken for granted and forgotten about. If you need proof that the government gets it right far more than they get it wrong,look around, you live in the greatest country on earth.

In whose hands do guns kill more people?
1. Lawful abiding citizens who buy them legally and register them
2. Criminals
3. Governments

[speedbump]

In whose hands do guns kill more people?
1. Lawful abiding citizens who buy them legally and register them
2. Criminals
3. Governments

Criminals. So should we be trying to make easier or more difficult for them to get weapons?

[bobcat1]

Criminals. So should we be trying to make easier or more difficult for them to get weapons?

It won't really matter what laws we pass, it won't affect them at all. I don't know why it is so hard to get through Demwit's heads.

[speedbump]

It won't really matter what laws we pass, it won't affect them at all. I don't know why it is so hard to get through Demwit's heads.

Take a look at this study of vehicle deaths. You will see a steady decline. Do you have any idea why? Let me help you. It was because of stricter laws regarding both the drivers and auto manufacturing. You want to talk about dimwits? A dimwit is an ignorant paranoid that thinks the answer to gun violence at schools is more guns in the building. Or it could also be someone that can't spell dimwit.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1106.pdf

[Old Tiger]

The Gov't did not make it that way, the free people did.




BEASTThe Free Enterprise/Market did

[bobcat1]

Take a look at this study of vehicle deaths. You will see a steady decline. Do you have any idea why? Let me help you. It was because of stricter laws regarding both the drivers and auto manufacturing. You want to talk about dimwits? A dimwit is an ignorant paranoid that thinks the answer to gun violence at schools is more guns in the building. Or it could also be someone that can't spell dimwit.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1106.pdf

A Dimwit would be someone who could not comprehend my spelling of Demwit and the intended inference. What do laws about cars have to do with criminals getting guns illegally? They have never made any laws criminals don't break now have they?

[Farmersfan]

The things that work don't get the attention the failures get. They are taken for granted and forgotten about. If you need proof that the government gets it right far more than they get it wrong,look around, you live in the greatest country on earth.



There is a huge disparity between what is considered as "working" in government and in the private sector. Government can simply print more money and write new debt ceilings to cover for their mistakes. Don't be fooled speedbump, the American Government has been riding the hard working backs of the Great American People for a century. The power to enact additional taxes on a whim to cover it's deficiencies is keeping it above water. If not for lose fiscal policy and the tolerance of it's people the American government would have been bankrupt decades ago. So I challenge you to present a single government organization that runs in a precise and organized manner. I work for the Government and love it but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it is anything close to efficient.

[Farmersfan]

Criminals. So should we be trying to make easier or more difficult for them to get weapons?



We already have laws in place that are supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws have been essentially worthless because criminals don't obey laws so it appears everybody would learn to understand this fact. But obviously some either don't understand it or are willing to step on the rights of the Law Abiding citizens in order to try and get what little prevention to criminals that this would get them.

[speedbump]

We already have laws in place that are supposed to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws have been essentially worthless because criminals don't obey laws so it appears everybody would learn to understand this fact. But obviously some either don't understand it or are willing to step on the rights of the Law Abiding citizens in order to try and get what little prevention to criminals that this would get them.

Law abiding citizens doing nothing won't get it done either. Stricter gun laws will save lives just like stricter DUI laws have. Will it eliminate the problem totally? Of course not but if it saves lives at our schools, malls and everywhere else these idiots choose to commit multiple murders it's worth it. I have three guns and can protect myself just fine and don't need to play Rambo to do it. I will register my weapons without a worry at all.
The sky aint fallin and the Russians aint coming. But obviously some either don't understand it or just don't care as long as they get to play with their toys.

[BEAST]

Law abiding citizens doing nothing won't get it done either. Stricter gun laws will save lives just like stricter DUI laws have. Will it eliminate the problem totally? Of course not but if it saves lives at our schools, malls and everywhere else these idiots choose to commit multiple murders it's worth it. I have three guns and can protect myself just fine and don't need to play Rambo to do it. I will register my weapons without a worry at all.
The sky aint fallin and the Russians aint coming. But obviously some either don't understand it or just don't care as long as they get to play with their toys.

Can you explain in detail how stricter gun laws are going to stop any of the crazy murderers?




BEAST

[speedbump]

Can you explain in detail how stricter gun laws are going to stop any of the crazy murderers?
BEAST

Right after you explain in detail how they (whoever that is) are going to go millions of homes and take away our guns.

[BEAST]

Right after you explain in detail how they (whoever that is) are going to go millions of homes and take away our guns.

I havent said that. Now, back to the question I asked you.




BEAST

[Ville]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=today.com%20investigation%20is%20very&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.today.msnbc.msn.com%2Ftoday %2F50208495&ei=UmkAUeGSE-qU2QWYvYCwDw&usg=AFQjCNGXbmlU4Rn_xL0DhKfUjP3RWTwNLA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.b2I

[Macarthur]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=today.com%20investigation%20is%20very&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.today.msnbc.msn.com%2Ftoday %2F50208495&ei=UmkAUeGSE-qU2QWYvYCwDw&usg=AFQjCNGXbmlU4Rn_xL0DhKfUjP3RWTwNLA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.b2I

Why did you post this? The story has been corrected for a good 6 weeks and supported by all legitimate media outlets. Virtually all the outlets have admitted that in the hours right after the shooting, information was sketchy and there was a lot of bad info out there.

The Youtube hoax video has been soundly debunked.

[Macarthur]

dp..

[Eagle 1]

So what you are saying is if it's on the internet now, then it has to be true?
The video showed specific live footages that have no answers. It's your freedom to choose as you believe, just as it's my freedom to question certain unanswered details.
Here a question that hasn't been asked. If you go to video link, it is a live radio traffic recording of the whole incident.
If you fast foward to 9:55:26 seconds, the police officer says "we have multiple weapons including 1 rifle and 1 shotgun".
So how is that possible if the police have't removed the shotgun from the trunk of the car at that time?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ETkrxfYoQtc

Again, nobody has answered my question. This is unedited material straight from the officers on ground.

[Ville]

Because nobody knows what happened and it could be true either way. Don't blame a particular gun it's the nut With the gun. Someone with semi auto pistols could do the same thing. So what do we all have to have revolvers now? He could have just poured gas on the building and set it on fire or blew it up. Nuts are nuts and taking away a gun don't fix the nut. Do you know how easy he could have just made a bomb? Anyone with Internet can do that should I hide my iPad now. They going to come get it?

[Eagle 1]

Because nobody knows what happened and it could be true either way. Don't blame a particular gun it's the nut With the gun. Someone with semi auto pistols could do the same thing. So what do we all have to have revolvers now? He could have just poured gas on the building and set it on fire or blew it up. Nuts are nuts and taking away a gun don't fix the nut. Do you know how easy he could have just made a bomb? Anyone with Internet can do that should I hide my iPad now. They going to come get it?

Remember, revolvers won the west. A good gunslinger could pop off six rounds from a revolver just as fast as somebody with a magazine fed pistol now days.....and probably with more accuracy.

[Macarthur]

Again, nobody has answered my question. This is unedited material straight from the officers on ground.

What is your question?

[BwdLion73]

Yup...Its the internet to blame....we need regulation by our government now!

[sinfan75]

: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Hopefully this works but no AR 15 used in shooting

[sinfan75]

: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Hopefully this works but no AR 15 used in shooting

[speedbump]

: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Hopefully this works but no AR 15 used in shooting

That was the morning after the shootings and not even close to right. This might be closer to the truth. Four days ago. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html


The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

[Macarthur]

I dont understand why it is so difficult for some to grasp that in the hours following this thing, information was all over them map.

Once the dust cleared and officials did the appropriate investigation and fact gathering, the story is sound and reported as official by every single media outlet.

[Eagle 1]

What is your question?

First of all you have to go the link I already provided and fast foward to 9:55:26.
(remember this is LIVE RECORDINGS OF THE INCIDENT AS IT PLAYED OUT)

If you fast foward to 9:55:26 seconds, the police officer says "we have multiple weapons including 1 rifle and 1 shotgun".

My question is:
So how is that possible if the police have't removed the shotgun from the trunk of the car at that time?

[Eagle 1]

BTW, if you really want to get into a conspiracy debate, just google "ski mask purple van."

Yep, it's in the live radio talk link I provided.
Four times to be exact.

[Macarthur]

There were numerous reports of different guns and different numbers of guns. There was tons of mistakes made in the chaos.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

[defense51]

First of all you have to go the link I already provided and fast foward to 9:55:26.
(remember this is LIVE RECORDINGS OF THE INCIDENT AS IT PLAYED OUT)

If you fast foward to 9:55:26 seconds, the police officer says "we have multiple weapons including 1 rifle and 1 shotgun".

My question is:
So how is that possible if the police have't removed the shotgun from the trunk of the car at that time?I think the specificity of the comment is what raises a red flag to me. How do you name a specific weapon when it hasn't been discovered yet? If the comment such as "we believe there to be multiple weapons involved, possibly handguns and/or rifles" I wouldn't think twice about it.

[Macarthur]

I think the specificity of the comment is what raises a red flag to me. How do you name a specific weapon when it hasn't been discovered yet? If the comment such as "we believe there to be multiple weapons involved, possibly handguns and/or rifles" I wouldn't think twice about it.

Ok then what do you think is a more reasonable explanation?

[speedbump]

Remember, revolvers won the west. A good gunslinger could pop off six rounds from a revolver just as fast as somebody with a magazine fed pistol now days.....and probably with more accuracy.

LOL - You watch to many sketty westerns.

[Eagle 1]

LOL - You watch to many sketty westerns.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS9uGktUCrY

[Eagle 1]

There were numerous reports of different guns and different numbers of guns. There was tons of mistakes made in the chaos.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

This is not a media report, this actual live recordings. I suspect you didn't even listen to what I am talking about, therefore you shouldn't even bother responding anymore.

[Macarthur]

This is not a media report, this actual live recordings. I suspect you didn't even listen to what I am talking about, therefore you shouldn't even bother responding anymore.

For your information I did listen. My answer is I dont have foggiest idea why he said that. Given what we do know, my opinion is that he made a mistake. Its quite possible someone told him that. He didnt actually say HE saw both.

The problem is that you are ignoring the the most logical and reasonable explanations because it just easier to think otherwise. Its certainly easier than actually looking for the answers yourself.

[Macarthur]

And I find the irony rich because you get smart with me because you dont think I listened to the youtube. Its ironic because you enter this thread like you have genuine 'questions' when reasonable answers to these questions are readily available at multiple media outlets.

[ronwx5x]

Some folks will always believe the conspiracy because it is far more interesting. Here is what the police spokesman has to say. Forget the conspiracy.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/newtownshooting/article/State-Police-All-26-Newtown-victims-shot-with-4220548.php

[defense51]

Ok then what do you think is a more reasonable explanation?

Honestly I don't know, I'm not saying there was or was not a conspiracy, but the comment made by the officer makes me wonder.

[speedbump]

In this one he tells you about the so called gun slingers of the old west.

http://www.wimp.com/fastestgunman/

[Eagle 1]

For your information I did listen. My answer is I dont have foggiest idea why he said that. Given what we do know, my opinion is that he made a mistake. Its quite possible someone told him that. He didnt actually say HE saw both.

The problem is that you are ignoring the the most logical and reasonable explanations because it just easier to think otherwise. Its certainly easier than actually looking for the answers yourself.

I think many Americans are in search of explanations which is exactly why we are questioning what we are being told.
Many people refuse to just be "sheepeoples", but if you do then that's your choice.
Your right about one thing, you don't have the foggiest ideal, instead you rely only on what the mainstream media tells you. Just how reliable is that? If you consider my questions genuine then so be it.

[Eagle 1]

In this one he tells you about the so called gun slingers of the old west.

http://www.wimp.com/fastestgunman/

You honestly don't believe there were gunslingers in the old west? They may not have been as glamorous as hollywood portrayed them, but they certainly did excist.


A famous and well-recorded duel occurred on 21 July 1865. Wild Bill Hickok and Davis Tutt quarrelled over cards and decided to have a gunfight. They arranged to walk towards each other at 6 p.m. When they were about 50 yards apart, both men drew their guns. Tutt fired first but missed. Hickok's shot hit Tutt in the heart. This was the first recorded example of two men taking part in a quick-draw duel.

[speedbump]

You honestly don't believe there were gunslingers in the old west? They may not have been as glamorous as hollywood portrayed them, but they certainly did excist.

I don't know where you get your info but the shooting wasn't over cards and Hickok didn't shoot him in the heart. He hit him on the left side between the 5th and 6th ribs.They faced each other sideways in the dueling position and when Tutt reached for his pistol Hickok drew his gun and steadied it on his opposite forearm. Hardly what I'd call "gun slinging cowboys" You're right about them not being as glamorous alright. Dueling drunks are hardly gun slingers fireing off rounds as fast as the semi automatic weapons of today. LOL Sure they did.

[Macarthur]

I think many Americans are in search of explanations which is exactly why we are questioning what we are being told.
Many people refuse to just be "sheepeoples", but if you do then that's your choice.
Your right about one thing, you don't have the foggiest ideal, instead you rely only on what the mainstream media tells you. Just how reliable is that? If you consider my questions genuine then so be it.


YOu don't have to be such a drama queen. We all know that the government is not always honest and up front with its citizens.

I guess my deal on this is so if you think these 'questions' have merit, when does that lead you? Let's follow this rabbit all the way down the hole. I mean really think about what that means.

There's also something to me that is comical about the folks that seem to always want to subscribe to conspiracy. They generally are the same folks that complain that government can't do anything right, yet they have the amazing abiliity to pull of an elaborate 'hoax' such as this. :)

[bobcat1]

Mac I don't think it is that the government can't do anything right, I think they choose not to.

[Eagle 1]

I don't know where you get your info but the shooting wasn't over cards and Hickok didn't shoot him in the heart. He hit him on the left side between the 5th and 6th ribs.They faced each other sideways in the dueling position and when Tutt reached for his pistol Hickok drew his gun and steadied it on his opposite forearm. Hardly what I'd call "gun slinging cowboys" You're right about them not being as glamorous alright. Dueling drunks are hardly gun slingers fireing off rounds as fast as the semi automatic weapons of today. LOL Sure they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfighter

But I'm sure you were there and witnessed it all.

[Eagle 1]

YOu don't have to be such a drama queen. We all know that the government is not always honest and up front with its citizens.

I guess my deal on this is so if you think these 'questions' have merit, when does that lead you? Let's follow this rabbit all the way down the hole. I mean really think about what that means.

There's also something to me that is comical about the folks that seem to always want to subscribe to conspiracy. They generally are the same folks that complain that government can't do anything right, yet they have the amazing abiliity to pull of an elaborate 'hoax' such as this. :)

Again, your the one who keeps bringing up the word conspiracy.
Like I said before, these are real observations by real Americans.
BTW, I worked for the goverment for 23.5 years. How many years have you worked for the government?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

That conspiracy video has already been solidly debunked by experts. I mean, you guys do realize that there isn't a debate anymore because everyone knows that the video is baseless and raises no valid questions, right?

Oh, wait, facts don't matter, all people are looking for is another reason to smear Obama no matter how insensitive and absurd they are. There is a special place in Hell for people who try to downplay the actions in Newtown as a conspiracy theory and claim that 20 children and six adults were killed to further "liberal gun control"

As I mentioned, the video was bogus so I'm not sure why we're still talking about it like it has any validity or merit.

[Eagle 1]

That conspiracy video has already been solidly debunked by experts. I mean, you guys do realize that there isn't a debate anymore because everyone knows that the video is baseless and raises no valid questions, right?

Oh, wait, facts don't matter, all people are looking for is another reason to smear Obama no matter how insensitive and absurd they are. There is a special place in Hell for people who try to downplay the actions in Newtown as a conspiracy theory and claim that 20 children and six adults were killed to further "liberal gun control"

As I mentioned, the video was bogus so I'm not sure why we're still talking about it like it has any validity or merit.


Again, the word conspiracy. :rolleyes:

[Saggy Aggie]

That conspiracy video has already been solidly debunked by experts. I mean, you guys do realize that there isn't a debate anymore because everyone knows that the video is baseless and raises no valid questions, right?

Oh, wait, facts don't matter, all people are looking for is another reason to smear Obama no matter how insensitive and absurd they are. There is a special place in Hell for people who try to downplay the actions in Newtown as a conspiracy theory and claim that 20 children and six adults were killed to further "liberal gun control"

As I mentioned, the video was bogus so I'm not sure why we're still talking about it like it has any validity or merit.

I don't think anyone here has said it's a conspiracy. The only thing people have said was that he raised a few good questions.

I've seen the 'debunking' articles as well and I'm not impressed with a few of their explanations.

Guess I'm going to hell

[Emerson1]

What would the definition of a conspiracy then? Since raising questions that points to government involvement isn't a conspiracy.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

I don't think anyone here has said it's a conspiracy. The only thing people have said was that he raised a few good questions.

I've seen the 'debunking' articles as well and I'm not impressed with a few of their explanations.

Guess I'm going to hell

They didn't say it was a conspiracy theory because they believe in it. But when the video raises questions and in it's conclusion asks if the Newtown shooting was staged to promote gun control legislation, it falls under the realm of conspiracy theory. Let's not be stupid and naive - call a spade a spade. There is really nothing to argue, as I mentioned earlier all of the questions that are asked have been answered and put to bed; you would know that if you actually lived outside of the bubble.

[Eagle 1]

You call it a conspiracy, we call it questions.
I think there are to many inconsistencies reported in the Sandy Hook shootings to just dismiss them as bad media mistakes. In the live radio talk recordings of the police and first responders, one of the officers clearly reports the scene having multiple weapons including one rifle and one shotgun. So how is that possible if the shotgun wasn't found until later in the trunk of the car? Plus this is officers on the scene and not the media reporting.

[bobcat1]

You call it a conspiracy, we call it questions.
I think there are to many inconsistencies reported in the Sandy Hook shootings to just dismiss them as bad media mistakes. In the live radio talk recordings of the police and first responders, one of the officers clearly reports the scene having multiple weapons including one rifle and one shotgun. So how is that possible if the shotgun wasn't found until later in the trunk of the car? Plus this is officers on the scene and not the media reporting.

They probably forgot their lines. :wave:

[Saggy Aggie]

They didn't say it was a conspiracy theory because they believe in it. But when the video raises questions and in it's conclusion asks if the Newtown shooting was staged to promote gun control legislation, it falls under the realm of conspiracy theory. Let's not be stupid and naive - call a spade a spade. There is really nothing to argue, as I mentioned earlier all of the questions that are asked have been answered and put to bed; you would know that if you actually lived outside of the bubble.

Yes, clearly the guy in the video thinks its a hoax. I get that. What I said is that no one on 3adl is willing to go that far, but several of us do agree that the conspiracy guy makes a few valid points and raises some good questions. I'd just like to know why so many things don't add up.

Bad media reporting is the answer to most of these questions...

Meh

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_cons piracy_theory/

Read it, and stop asking idiotic questions because here are the answers (with citations to back the claims).

This isn't up for discussion. This conspiracy theory has been debunked, and asking further questions has no point or purpose.

[bobcat1]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_cons piracy_theory/

Read it, and stop asking idiotic questions because here are the answers (with citations to back the claims).

This isn't up for discussion. This conspiracy theory has been debunked, and asking further questions has no point or purpose.Yeah, right! Kinda like "just pass it. We'll read what's in it later." Foolish young man.

[Eagle 1]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/your_comprehensive_answer_to_every_sandy_hook_cons piracy_theory/

Read it, and stop asking idiotic questions because here are the answers (with citations to back the claims).

This isn't up for discussion. This conspiracy theory has been debunked, and asking further questions has no point or purpose.

If it's not up for discussion, why do you keep responding? LOL>>>>

[Eagle 1]

Yes, clearly the guy in the video thinks its a hoax. I get that. What I said is that no one on 3adl is willing to go that far, but several of us do agree that the conspiracy guy makes a few valid points and raises some good questions. I'd just like to know why so many things don't add up.

Bad media reporting is the answer to most of these questions...

Meh

I agree except I'm not buying the bad media reporting is the answer to all of these questions. The media was pretty spot on during the Aurora shootings just a six months before or the Va. Tech shootings a few years ago.

[bobcat1]

Follow along closely here boys. Mrs. Lanza's guns were registered right? Did it stop a criminal from performing a hideous act? Neither will any more legislation.

[Saggy Aggie]

I agree except I'm not buying the bad media reporting is the answer to all of these questions. The media was pretty spot on during the Aurora shootings just a six months before or the Va. Tech shootings a few years ago.

Right. We're supposed to believe bad media reporting is the answer to everything that doesn't add up...

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Yeah, right! Kinda like "just pass it. We'll read what's in it later." Foolish young man.

Oh, so you're rejecting factual evidence that is presented to you, but you'll sit down and watch a thirty minute long conspiracy video and suck it down like it's the gospel? Get out of the bubble and stop acting like a child. You'll take in unfounded questions but when someone presents cited facts you dismiss it. Typical

[bobcat1]

Oh, so you're rejecting factual evidence that is presented to you, but you'll sit down and watch a thirty minute long conspiracy video and suck it down like it's the gospel? Get out of the bubble and stop acting like a child. You'll take in unfounded questions but when someone presents cited facts you dismiss it. Typical You have no facts that you know absolutely to be true, only what you've read and repeat, right? Sit down Gary.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

If it's not up for discussion, why do you keep responding? LOL>>>>

It's not up for discussion because the facts are on the table and the conspiracy has been debunked. Did you read the link I posted? Probably not, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting here making yourself look stupid by promoting an idea that has been solidly proven false with evidence to show exactly why it has no merit. That's why it's not up for discussion, we don't debate about gravity because evidence proves it. This is no different. The proof is there.

[Eagle 1]

Oh, so you're rejecting factual evidence that is presented to you, but you'll sit down and watch a thirty minute long conspiracy video and suck it down like it's the gospel? Get out of the bubble and stop acting like a child. You'll take in unfounded questions but when someone presents cited facts you dismiss it. Typical

Go back and read my first two post on this, #6 and #19.
I quote myself:


I couldn't get the video to work, but I suspect the video is something that many Americans as myself have already pondered.

In other words, I already had questions BEFORE the video came out.
Yes it's still up for discussion. If you care not to discuss it anymore, then excuse yourself....again.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Go back and read my first two post on this, #6 and #19.
I quote myself:



In other words, I already had questions BEFORE the video came out.
Yes it's still up for discussion. If you care not to discuss it anymore, then excuse yourself....again.

Go back and read the article I posted. All of your questions will be answered WITH CITATIONS to back up the claims. You see, there is a difference between baseless speculation (what you're posting) and well-founded fact with supporting evidence (what I posted).

[Macarthur]

Go back and read the article I posted. All of your questions will be answered WITH CITATIONS to back up the claims. You see, there is a difference between baseless speculation (what you're posting) and well-founded fact with supporting evidence (what I posted).

Best of luck. I tried for about 10 pages. theyre not interested in the truth.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Best of luck. I tried for about 10 pages. theyre not interested in the truth.

Yeah, because if fact mattered at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion...

[bobcat1]

Best of luck. I tried for about 10 pages. theyre not interested in the truth.


Yeah, because if fact mattered at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion...And your facts come from a biased source just as everyone else's Gary. None of this is something you actually witnessed in person. So it is what you assume to be facts from whom and where you get your information, right? Don't deflect or shift talking points, just answer the question. It is either yes or no and there is no gray area.

[bobcat1]

This debate is closed as far as I am concerned until you boys get a little gray in your hair. You have education but no life experience to draw on. I have both. When the playing field is equal come back and then we can have a good common sense debate. And I thought my boys were hard headed. At least they take the time to listen to their elders and learn from them instead of some paid idiot on TV.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

And your facts come from a biased source just as everyone else's Gary. None of this is something you actually witnessed in person. So it is what you assume to be facts from whom and where you get your information, right? Don't deflect or shift talking points, just answer the question. It is either yes or no and there is no gray area.

Hence why they include citations to support their claims. Many of them are based on eyewitness testimony and backed up with it. When did that become biased? Oh wait, it didn't. It's not an assumption that they're facts when one of the crime scene investigators is quoted as walking over the children's dead bodies and seeing them with their own eyes. Do I still need to answer your question, or are you going to read the article I posted and see for yourself that there is satisfactory evidence and fact included?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

This debate is closed as far as I am concerned until you boys get a little gray in your hair. You have education but no life experience to draw on. I have both. When the playing field is equal come back and then we can have a good common sense debate. And I thought my boys were hard headed. At least they take the time to listen to their elders and learn from them instead of some paid idiot on TV.

Stop using excuses you coward. What it boils down to is you're tired of getting owned in a discussion that entails facts and logic by someone younger than you. Logic like yours would prevent child prodigies and geniuses from attending college at the age of 12. This is an argument about merits, and I obviously have the knowledge and intellect to stand here and debate you toe to toe. You, on the other hand, are afraid to get your political values smashed on by a 24 year old (which I've done numerous times, much to your own chagrin). It's okay if you don't have the stones to debate me - just say it and stop hiding behind excuses about my age; it would be the more truthful and mature approach instead of trying to act like I'm not qualified, because I am.

[bobcat1]

Stop using excuses you coward. What it boils down to is you're tired of getting owned in a discussion that entails facts and logic by someone younger than you. Logic like yours would prevent child prodigies and geniuses from attending college at the age of 12. This is an argument about merits, and I obviously have the knowledge and intellect to stand here and debate you toe to toe. You, on the other hand, are afraid to get your political values smashed on by a 24 year old (which I've done numerous times, much to your own chagrin). It's okay if you don't have the stones to debate me - just say it and stop hiding behind excuses about my age; it would be the more truthful and mature approach instead of trying to act like I'm not qualified, because I am.

I am glad you are convinced you are. Problem is I'm not. So your debate and my debate accomplished nothing. You will not change me and it will be another 20 years before you actually have eyes of wisdom.

[Saggy Aggie]

Stop using excuses you coward. What it boils down to is you're tired of getting owned in a discussion that entails facts and logic by someone younger than you. Logic like yours would prevent child prodigies and geniuses from attending college at the age of 12. This is an argument about merits, and I obviously have the knowledge and intellect to stand here and debate you toe to toe. You, on the other hand, are afraid to get your political values smashed on by a 24 year old (which I've done numerous times, much to your own chagrin). It's okay if you don't have the stones to debate me - just say it and stop hiding behind excuses about my age; it would be the more truthful and mature approach instead of trying to act like I'm not qualified, because I am.

LOL, stop being a tool.


Just because you believe everything you read in the article you posted does NOT make it fact.

I'm not saying its a hoax, in fact, I dont think it was, but even im not naive enough to write off all the inconsistencies as 'bad reporting.'

I would just like a more thorough explanantion from the police on what guns were found, why they dont match up with what the medical examiner determined to be the cause of death. Or why the families werent allowed to see the victims, etc.

Multiple conflicting reports on several different issues that were just left unaddressed and merely written off as bad reporting doesnt work for me. And trust me, I'm well aware bad reporting does happen especially in a situation like this, but usually there is some type of offical clarification from the police.

[rockdale80]

LOL, stop being a tool.


Just because you believe everything you read in the article you posted does NOT make it fact.

I'm not saying its a hoax, in fact, I dont think it was, but even im not naive enough to write off all the inconsistencies as 'bad reporting.'

I would just like a more thorough explanantion from the police on what guns were found, why they dont match up with what the medical examiner determined to be the cause of death. Or why the families werent allowed to see the victims, etc.

Multiple conflicting reports on several different issues that were just left unaddressed and merely written off as bad reporting doesnt work for me. And trust me, I'm well aware bad reporting does happen especially in a situation like this, but usually there is some type of offical clarification from the police.

Its more important for news stations to be first than accurate. You say that he shouldn't believe an article and you shouldn't believe a stitched together youtube video....

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

LOL, stop being a tool.


Just because you believe everything you read in the article you posted does NOT make it fact.

I'm not saying its a hoax, in fact, I dont think it was, but even im not naive enough to write off all the inconsistencies as 'bad reporting.'

I would just like a more thorough explanantion from the police on what guns were found, why they dont match up with what the medical examiner determined to be the cause of death. Or why the families werent allowed to see the victims, etc.

Multiple conflicting reports on several different issues that were just left unaddressed and merely written off as bad reporting doesnt work for me. And trust me, I'm well aware bad reporting does happen especially in a situation like this, but usually there is some type of offical clarification from the police.

If you read the article, you would realize it does include multiple answers other than just bad media reporting. You didn't read the article, therefore you don't know what is fact and what isn't so your assertion is baseless. Read the article, then we can talk about the merits of it's content instead of you looking like a fool trying desperately to smear something that you haven't even looked at.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

I am glad you are convinced you are. Problem is I'm not. So your debate and my debate accomplished nothing. You will not change me and it will be another 20 years before you actually have eyes of wisdom.

Actually, it accomplished chipping away at your core political values. Like I said, those are just cowardly excuses because you now realize you're the one who isn't qualified to be in the discussion. Everything you've posted has been thoroughly refuted with fact, while you've continually went the route of the straw man debate and not addressed the majority of the points I've made (saying it's not true and then not providing any evidence doesn't count, intelligent people want proof that you've never provided). Maybe someday you'll be able to stand toe to toe and engage me in a battle of wits, but that day is not today so don't pretend you're taking the high road - no, no, you're tucking your tail between your legs and running away like a scared dog.

[big daddy russ]

Wow. First time back on in two or three weeks and I come back to this.

Gary, we already had a brief discussion about the subject on Facebook. Until there's statistical significance to back up the claim that gun control will limit violent crime, there's no logical reason to enact further gun control laws. I posted and you saw the violent crime rates of a few places in correlation to strict gun control laws. And every single one of those were actual rates, taking into account increases and decreases in population. Washington DC is the most famous case, but I'd argue that the UK is the better example.

That said, there are also examples of places where the violent crime rate has gone down after enacting gun control laws. That's where the statistical significance of any argument for OR against gets completely blown out the window.

Ultimately, violent crime rates are more culturally influenced than anything. I'd like to dig further into it, look into the many reasons why, and try to understand a complex problem that we face not just as a nation, but on a much larger scale. And then I'd like to break it down ever further.

We live in a broken world. If we expect to solve this problem, we need to address it at its source.

[bobcat1]

Actually, it accomplished chipping away at your core political values. Like I said, those are just cowardly excuses because you now realize you're the one who isn't qualified to be in the discussion. Everything you've posted has been thoroughly refuted with fact, while you've continually went the route of the straw man debate and not addressed the majority of the points I've made (saying it's not true and then not providing any evidence doesn't count, intelligent people want proof that you've never provided). Maybe someday you'll be able to stand toe to toe and engage me in a battle of wits, but that day is not today so don't pretend you're taking the high road - no, no, you're tucking your tail between your legs and running away like a scared dog. No Mr Knowitallinyourownmind. I am simply tired of trying to get you to see common sense. Everything you have proposed as facts came from some liberal rag, TV show, or Dimwit led government agency. You really are full of yourself aren't you? Save this thread and read it 20 years from now and see just how blind you really were. Then remember this old man tried to get thru to you. Call me a coward or idiot and unable to match wits. But I am really done with this because you won't win me over and I won't win you over and I am not a fast typist. Take this little test to see why: http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

No Mr Knowitallinyourownmind. I am simply tired of trying to get you to see common sense. Everything you have proposed as facts came from some liberal rag, TV show, or Dimwit led government agency. You really are full of yourself aren't you? Save this thread and read it 20 years from now and see just how blind you really were. Then remember this old man tried to get thru to you. Call me a coward or idiot and unable to match wits. But I am really done with this because you won't win me over and I won't win you over and I am not a fast typist. Take this little test to see why: http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm

Excuse, excuse, excuse, and another excuse. Yawn

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Wow. First time back on in two or three weeks and I come back to this.

Gary, we already had a brief discussion about the subject on Facebook. Until there's statistical significance to back up the claim that gun control will limit violent crime, there's no logical reason to enact further gun control laws. I posted and you saw the violent crime rates of a few places in correlation to strict gun control laws. And every single one of those were actual rates, taking into account increases and decreases in population. Washington DC is the most famous case, but I'd argue that the UK is the better example.

That said, there are also examples of places where the violent crime rate has gone down after enacting gun control laws. That's where the statistical significance of any argument for OR against gets completely blown out the window.

Ultimately, violent crime rates are more culturally influenced than anything. I'd like to dig further into it, look into the many reasons why, and try to understand a complex problem that we face not just as a nation, but on a much larger scale. And then I'd like to break it down ever further.

We live in a broken world. If we expect to solve this problem, we need to address it at its source.

More guns certainly don't deter violent crime, either. Registering weapons is a mighty fine place to start. Go read the other thread please, I've commented more about my beliefs on gun control there.

[Macarthur]

This debate is closed as far as I am concerned until you boys get a little gray in your hair. You have education but no life experience to draw on. I have both. When the playing field is equal come back and then we can have a good common sense debate. And I thought my boys were hard headed. At least they take the time to listen to their elders and learn from them instead of some paid idiot on TV.

This is you deflecting. I think BBDE is right in that you don't have the data/facts on your side so you create a strawman such as liberal media to make yourself feel better.

And while the tired old 'youngun' act may work on BBDE, I'm in my 40's, and raising teen age kids. I've been around the block a time or two.

And never mistake age for wisdom. Some folks have 20 years of experience and some folks have 1 year of experience 20 times.

[bobcat1]

This is you deflecting. I think BBDE is right in that you don't have the data/facts on your side so you create a strawman such as liberal media to make yourself feel better.

And while the tired old 'youngun' act may work on BBDE, I'm in my 40's, and raising teen age kids. I've been around the block a time or two.

And never mistake age for wisdom. Some folks have 20 years of experience and some folks have 1 year of experience 20 times.

I would bet you have not been around the block as many times as I have and the last sentence in your post is spot on. Question is, which are you?

I've been dealing with folks with financial issues on a daily basis for 35 years. I think I can speak to the financial health of this country through my own personal experience. I do not need to know what CNN or some other liberal glad rag reports.

On another note, if you think new gun laws will solve the mental health and the morality issues in this country (which is the root of the problem) then I feel for you and the fact that you are incapable of forming your own opinion. You are just a good follower in my book. One of the Sheeple.

[Macarthur]

and the last sentence in your post is spot on. Question is, which are you?

I actually think the thread speaks for itself.

[Cam]

......:1popcorn:.....we should all get together and barbecue or something......

[Eagle 1]

This is an old clip, but very appropriate for what is happening right now.
Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby’s massacre and both of whose parents were shot and killed. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. Suzanna went on to become a member of the Texas House of Representatives. My wife new her and her husband through her job. The Lubys her parents were killed in is now a Chinese resturant that my wife and often eat at when in Killeen.
Very well put, she also makes statements about assualt weapons and there use as home protection.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M1u0Byq5Qis