Correction, no concrete evidence of a second shooter.

I cant think of anything sicker then this.  18 kids dead.  Not that it is okay for high school age kids to be involved in something like this but at least you can understand some of it.  High school can be a difficult time.  However this is seemingly an adult that just wanted to go on a killing spree and choose young kids as his target.  When i first read the story I wanted to puke.  It is that sick.

I assume they were the people dead in his home?  The report I just read didnt ID them.

APIAD wrote:

Normally I dont let national news trouble me to much.  Bad stuff happens everyday.  Filling your mind with everyones elses problems doesnt really help much.  However this school shooting really sickens me even more so then others.  It is pretty hard to see those pictures of third graders being lead away in lines while they are bawling.  No kid should have to suffer through an even like that.  What kind of sick fuck targets an elementary school?

Well said, AP. Those photos of the kids walking hand-in-hand with the terrified looks on their faces are as heart-breaking as anything I've ever seen.

Ah yes... and these assholes are out of the woodwork again...

"Shirley Phelps-Roper, a spokesperson for the Topeka, Kan., Westboro church and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, put on Twitter, "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment.""

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/protest-westboro-baptist-church-erupts-185802032.html

These guys need to be careful, protesting military funerals is bad enough, but jumping around celebrating God's vengeance in the face of a town that just lost 20 kids is bordering on suicidal. Everyone has a breaking point, and sooner or later, they are going to put someone on tilt who goes on a shooting spree of his own. It will likely be the only time America cheers about a mass killing...

While we are on the subject of using a mass murder for political positioning we might as well bring up the democrats and their gun control BS.  I am not for gun control but if it is debated that is fine.  Everyone has a right to voice their opinion.  However just because an assault rifle was used doesnt mean another gun wouldnt take its place had it not been available.  To use this event as a platform to force a political agenda upon the public makes me unhappy.  An assault rifle ban isnt the solution but more importantly bringing it up in connection to this is disrespectful.

"The most absurd argument I've heard in the last few days is the one from the Texas congressman who thinks we ought to be arming school personnel."

He wasn't the only one with that idea.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-chief-offers-bold-option-to-nervous/article_c9d62ba7-4505-51bb-90d9-51d71f99778a.html

forsberg_us wrote:

"The most absurd argument I've heard in the last few days is the one from the Texas congressman who thinks we ought to be arming school personnel."

He wasn't the only one with that idea.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-county-police-chief-offers-bold-option-to-nervous/article_c9d62ba7-4505-51bb-90d9-51d71f99778a.html

It would be interesting to know if any of the schools that have come under attack have had school resource officers and how that might have helped.  I assume they didnt have one at Conn or at least he wasnt there at the time.  I dont think you should expect a teachers to be comfortable carrying a gun.  Then carrying it on their hip isnt something the kids should associate with a teacher or admin.  Plus what do you expect them to do.  Qualify 4 times a year?  Go to use of force training?  You are taking away from what they really need to be involved in, education. 

You cant take guns out of the bad guys hands so putting them in the good guys hands is the only way to combat it IMO.  I dont agree you should push that duty onto school officals tho.

And I'll allow I don't think it's realistic to think you can ever get rid of every gun, but you can certainly make it more difficult for military-style weapons to end up in the hands of lunatics like the kid who shot up the school in Connecticut last Friday. There's no reason, ever, for the type of rifle that kid used to be available at the local gun shop.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Outlawing guns isnt going to work.  the constitution prohibits it.  Talk of it is just political positioning."

You and I, and I suspect everyone else on this board with the possible exception of Max, are going to continue to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue, AP.
Gun ownership wasn't perceived as a "constitutional right" until the 1970s, under the NRA's very broad interpretation of a clause in the Second Amendment, which read in its entirety, is about maintaining a "well-regulated militia."
If you make the argument the Second Amendment is a right to carry a firearm, you could similarly make an argument that the opening clause of the Fifth Amendment allows you to not be held responsible for a capital crime.

Well it is hard to argue of the intentions of people who have long been dead.  However, by your own account, over the last 40 years it was been interpreted to mean what it means today.  right or wrong it doesnt change the world today.  If Washington wants to talk gun crontrol that is fine.  We all have a voice in that.  Let the piece land where they may.  However Washington moves slow and it wont fix the problem today or tomorrow or a year from now.  Outlawing guns today wouldnt fix it that fast.  You cant attack the problem with fairy land solutions. 

Seperatly I dont understand the NRA comment.  I am not always on the side of the NRA.  Honestly they piss me off alot.  However they dont make the laws.

artie_fufkin wrote:

And I'll allow I don't think it's realistic to think you can ever get rid of every gun, but you can certainly make it more difficult for military-style weapons to end up in the hands of lunatics like the kid who shot up the school in Connecticut last Friday. There's no reason, ever, for the type of rifle that kid used to be available at the local gun shop.

i dont know how much you know about guns Artie but I dont see the AR as this deadly killing machine that the media builds it up to be.  i dont have one.  I want one tho.  they look badass and Ive been told they make your dick bigger.  That is the olny reason I want one.  They are not more effective then any other gun for killing and they are NOT military.  they are Not automatic.  You cant pull the trigger once and spray rounds.  You have to pull it every time to make it fire a single round just like every other gun on the market.  I dont even think one was used in the colorado theater shooting.  He did all that with handguns and I think that proves my point.  Outlaw handguns and they could use a lever action hunting rifle.  Outlaw all guns and they will use a pipe bomb.  Sure you can get large magazines for ARs but it doesnt take that long to load a magazines.  Like a second, literally.  you just got to buy a couple extra ones.  Cal has a maximum capacity on magazines.  I believe 10 round max.  That is dumb because like I said it doesnt really do anything but cost the shooter a second or two.  Not only all of that but all of these high capacity magazines are already out there.  How do you get them back?  Go door to door?  If I buy a $1200 AR do you really think I plan on turning it in?

all of these shootings are basicly done at close range.  An AR isnt the most usefull gun for that IMO.  A handgun in my opion would be just as deadly.  Limit the magazines capacity and you still gain nothing.  Ive got 15 round magazines and carry 46 rounds total.  IDK how fast I could fire all 46 rounds and keep them on target but if I had to carry those rounds in 5 magazines instead of 3 it would cost me maybe 20 seconds extra.  And if I had an AR with a 50 round magazines maybe I gain a minute of exrta shooting.  Alot of people are still going to die if ARs are outlawed and the most restrictive gunlaws are enforces nation wide.  The problem needs to be attacked from another angle. 

Outlawing ARs is nothing more then a stepping stone for more gun control.  That is how both sides see it.  In the end, doing so wont make the community safer from such killing as what happend this week.  That is my honest opinion.  Pro gun/anti gun thoughts aside I really believe an AR ban is pointless.  what is the objective?  To see 15 kids killed instead of 20?  That isnt progress to me.  Id rather try and stop it all together.  I dont want this to be a pro/anti gun debate.  It doesnt need to be.  Neither one of us would change our minds.  Instead I like to know how you honestly think an AR ban would make the community safer?

forsberg_us wrote:

"Gun ownership wasn't perceived as a "constitutional right" until the 1970s"

It's right next to the constitutional right to an abortion.  Or the constituional right to separation of church and state.  Or the constitutional right to health care.  Or the constitutional right to gay marriage.

The last three are about equality. The abortion issue is never going to be settled because there's no middle ground, but I would suggest that anyone who is opposed to abortion shouldn't have one.