I will only say this, and let the rest of you say whatever you want ... in my opinion, the fact that people are actually contemplating with all seriousness the idea of a permanent armed police presence in schools is nothing more than evidence that compulsory education is an idea whose time has come and gone.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I hardly doubt James Madison had assault rifles in mind when inking the 2nd amendment so I really would like ignorant people to quit tossing that around out of context. Firing off ... what rifle they have back then ... a musket? versus something like an AK47? There's a bit of a difference there you knuckleheads!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

And when inking the first amendment, I highly doubt he could have envisioned that a single idiot could spread disinformation or stupidity in a matter of minutes to millions of people or that the press could instantly release information around the globe.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

I keep hearing the argument that people are going to kill regardless of the weapon chosen, so why do we insist on removing the assault rifle? The answer is because it has no other purpose but to kill multiple people in a short period of time. This weapon has no other purpose in our world, and should be removed from civilians out of everyone's cold dead hands if necessary.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

I keep hearing the argument that people are going to kill regardless of the weapon chosen, so why do we insist on removing the assault rifle? The answer is because it has no other purpose but to kill multiple people in a short period of time. This weapon has no other purpose in our world, and should be removed from civilians out of everyone's cold dead hands if necessary.

It doesn't fix the mental aspect of the people that kill, but it does go a long way in safeguarding us from ourselves.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

But you are wrong. They have other purposes. People use them all the time, and if there was not other purposes, it would mean that they are all out killing mass amounts of people. Instead of mass amounts of cans or paper targets.

Personally, I won't buy one because I enjoy marksmanship more than throwing loads of cash away in a burst of lead. But that is me. Others like to shoot them for hobby and fun.

Simple fact is, a pistol with 10 round clips can shoot the same amount of bullets in only a few seconds more time. Banning guns because of a shooting like this, is like banning Dancing and Loud music because some kids got killed in a car accident.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

You're wrong, big time. Dancing and Loud music were never used repeatedly to kill mass amounts of people.


What are the other purposes of an automatic weapon other than firing off mass amounts of bullets to more efficiently kill mass amounts of living things? I ask honestly because I'm truly ignorant here.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

The massacre of 20 children and 7 adults at the Sandy Hook elementary school last Friday was one more in a long line of atrocious mass murders committed in the USA. By now, four days later, an official version of events has more or less solidified to explain the chain of events. The familiar 'lone gunman' narrative has once more stoked the hot-button issue of gun control and left the general population as clueless as ever as to why people suddenly 'go postal' and target the most vulnerable members of society. On closer inspection, however, there is clearly more to many of these mass shootings than meets the eye. Very often the earliest reports present information that directly contradicts key foundations of the final 'official' analysis of events. Granted, confusion is natural when a story breaks, but some of the initial reports conflict so completely with the lone gunman narrative that I'm going to compile them here and then try to put this tragedy in a more objective context.