GlockSpock

I don't disagree with what it says about notifying an adult if you see a gun. I have a story that I will attempt to keep as clear as possible. One time my brother and myself were at my Aunt's house. I was probably 12 or so at the time. My Aunt was watching me, my brother, and my 2nd cousin that day. My 2nd cousin was probably 6 at the time. Another one of the cousins was a reserve/volunteer police officer at the time, and often stayed with his mom (my aunt).  Well that day we we three (myself, brother, and 2nd cousin) were in their side room playing with some things. I noticed that there was a holstered gun on the desk. My 2nd cousin saw it and wanted to play with it. He thought it was a toy/unloaded because he had never really been around guns and his father never really taught him the basics of safety.    You'd better believe I told my aunt about it in a hurry! In my viewpoint, this is the sort of situation that this press release is talking about. Unfortunately, there are many students out there who are as alien to guns as aliens are to us! It could have been worded better, but then again I'm afraid that within a few decades "Tell an adult if you know someone has a gun" will turn into "Tell a police officer if you know someone who owns a gun". In its current form it doesn't bother me, it could save many students lives.    What I have a problem with are schools' "Zero Tolerance" policy for violence as stated above. We were told that if someone was beating on you, after (I believe) three hits you could defend yourself and you not be considered guilty. But that was a few years ago and I am sure it has changed for the worse.

'Tis the only bloody way to travel as kings and queens isn't it?

I got around to writing Corker and Alexander an email. Not the first time I've done so. I've done so before and received "we have your 2nd Amendment in mind" messages. I don't know if they are generic emails in general or personalized ones. I have however wondered what would happen if I sent an email asking each of the to ban all firearms such as those used in CT. I wonder if I would receive an appeasement reply to that one as well?

At the bottom of that page, it specifies that between May 20 and May 23, he arranged to purchase a Thompson sub-machine gun from an undercover agent. It also specifies that on May 23, ATF searched his house. I guess he took the bait and lost :rofl:

I joined GOA this morning. I plan on re-upping my NRA membership later this week (although I'm not sure the NRA has our back as much as they proclaim). I also plan on joining the TFA (just read about them thanks to TGO on another post).   I wrote an email to Fleischmann (3rd District) and plan on writing an email to Corker and Alexander later today. Fleischmann has a pretty good record supporting the 2nd Amendment. I don't expect an email to Corker or Alexander to help much, but I'll do it anyway.    I wish petitions like this were helpful, but consider this. There are many petitions on there right now asking for stronger gun control. Considering that those in charge already have a preconceived preference to the issue, who do you think they will "listen to"?   Although it would make me a "panic buyer", I've considered trotting down to the gun store and purchasing something today. I mean a firearm. I cannot have too many, and a flipside to the "panic buying" is that often record number of guns are sold in very short amounts of time. I am of the mindset of the more guns that are being sold, the better.    If politicians wanted to outlay wearing evil blue shirts completely, they would be much more cautious about doing so if 100 million Americans went out and bought blue shirts rather than sat at home and signed a few petitions that would go overlooked.

  So we should just skip the guns and ban all the me...oh wait.   :shake:

This is odd. From what I gather, he was just shooting into the air and into the ground. He knew that especially after CT, this would frighten many people and gather nationwide attention.    So I see three reasons why he'd do so:   1) He likes attention 2) He likes scaring people 3) He is a political activist "protesting" the "loose" gun control laws in the country.   What the hell would you all do in a situation like this? Assuming that you are concealing and just happen to be strolling through the parking lot and someone starts firing several magazines worth of rounds into the air and the ground, what could you do? I would certainly feel that my life and well as the lives of others around me were in danger. Would you stop the threat? Would you get your loved ones out of there instantly? Would you seek cover and keep an eye on him to see if he was going to start shooting people?   I don't think there is a right answer here. Assuming that all you know at the time is someone is shooting bullets into the air, what can you do?    1) Stop the threat          His family would get a lawyer and run right through you. It'd turn out he was only shooting blanks. Your life as you know it would be over with. At best,         you would be in financial ruin. At worst, you would spend some time behind bars.   2) Get your loved ones and yourself out of there instantly         Possibly the best choice. But then it would turn out that he thought he was Rambo and was shooting Russians. Many people would die that day, and then         you would have that on your conscious for the rest of your life. Your loved ones would live, but you would always feel that you didn't do enough.   3) Seek cover and keep an eye on him to see if he was going to start shooting people?         If you have loved ones with you, you would be putting them in additional danger. Have them stay with you and you are keeping this close to this nut. Have          them run away and it would turn out that there were multiple nuts and they ran right towards another one. If you wait until the guy starts shooting people,          that would be once again something you would feel that you could have prevented. If he doesn't start shooting people, then I guess you played the lottery          and found the one win-win situation for you.   In all seriousness, what would you do? I would certainly feel threatened by someone shooting into the air in such a manner. But legally, is there enough to go on simply by someone shooting into the air?

I have pondered about that very possibility. Some people believe next week is it for everything, and may become very hysterical. Some of those that truly and deeply believe such may do things that they normally would not do simply because they don't feel that they will be held accountable or because they don't feel they are loosing anything. I hope not, but I won't be surprised if a lot of unstable people show themselves over the next week or two.   EDIT: I was only ten back around Y2K, so I don't remember much. Were there many instances of people acting out of character and doing things most people wouldn't?

  In some parts of the country, maybe. In TN (or at least SE TN), I don't see a tragedy like this changing much of the opinions here. Sure, if someone is already antigun, they may be a little more strongly antigun right now. Personally, I am reminded of my duty to the country (constitutionally speaking) and my loved ones to carry. Perhaps take a little bit more time to conceal compared to most of the time.    Also, sometimes you have copycats.

  I think his main concern is that in his hypothetical situation even though he saved many peoples' lives by stopping the shooter he also let a bullet graze one of the teachers and fears that he will be sued and possibly incriminated for this fact. I think back to the movie "SWAT" in which the cocky SWAT officer stops the hostage tackers but also wounds one of the hostages. I think in the movie it was mentioned that even though he possibly saved the hostage's life, she was suing the city. Actually a very likely scenario I believe, to save many lives but be sued because you may make a mistake or aren't 100% proficient.

  According to Brady, they don't ban magazines at all. Or at least they don't give them any points for it:   http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CT/   I believe roughly a year or two ago they tried, but I don't think it was actually passed.

  Well then I guess I am even less politically correct than you. I still stand behind my statement though. First, I stated that I could be wrong. I tried to briefly find statistics but had a hard time doing so, and I could be wrong in assuming that the statistics show it as I believe it is, but I believe that statistically speaking women are less likely to own multiple guns as well as statistically speaking women are less likely to own AR-15's.    Sure, there are many females (such as my aunt) who own more firearms than a lot of us on TGO, but statistically speaking I believe the two statements above to be true. Show me statistics otherwise and I will retract both of them and concede my point. These are statements that are based solely upon my suspicions, and have no statistics to back them up.

RGIS? What sort of work will you be doing? Congrats on the job though! Further evidence that there is indeed work out there for those that actually want it. If you don't mind me asking, how long were you without a job (and thus on unemployment I presume)? I don't think it was much over 2 months was it?    My main point here is that there are so many people on unemployment but here you are and you are able to find a job within a short amount of time compared to people on unemployment and welfare for ages.

  I could be wrong, but I suspect that the purchases for the firearms were arguably straw purchases by the mother for the son/s. A Glock, Sig, and AR-15 by a CT female teacher? It may come out that she was an avid sportswoman, but in my line of thinking I would say that the typical mother that simply wishes to protect her family would purchase one firearm for the home and consider it enough.    I say that she purchased the weapons for her son/s because they were interested in guns but were not old enough to purchase them for themselves at the time of purchase.

For anyone wondering about CT's laws, take a look here. In determining how "gun friendly" a state is, I usually just look to the Brady Bunch:   http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CT/   I am not 100% sure, but I thought earlier today CT was ranked by the BB as #4 in the country. Now a #5? I am not 100% sure of this.   CT has pretty restrictive requirements for purchasing firearms compared to TN. There they also apparently have "closed most of the gunshow loopholes". Also, to further comment on one of my earlier posts, I believe the shooter was 20 and his brother is 24. Why was the brother allegedly at the school? That is something that I am sure many of us would like to know. 

  Well, I feel that an armed populace is good at preventing two things: Tyranny in government and crime. I don't know how well it goes against deterring truly crazy people from doing crazy things. The CT shooter took his own life; Nearly all mass shooters take their own life. They plan on doing so before they ever begin shooting. I don't think an armed population would prevent a person from acting out on lunacy, but an armed population would be good at stopping a crazy person from shooting a large number of people.   I'm just not sure that an armed population will prevent a madman from trying to shoot as many people as possible. It's just, an armed population is going to make sure that the madman doesn't get very far with his plans.

Well I could be wrong, but any competent gunsmith should be able to do a simple spring replacement on any modern gun. A few parts diagrams, Youtube videos, and a parts order should be all they need.

Maybe? Or perhaps conceal each handgun under a large winter coat, and simply push the button to be buzzed in? He did technically (I believe) follow standard protocol and proceed to the front office first. I believe it is still allowed in practically any school in the nation to arrive at a school and speak with the administration unannounced? Appear to be there for an official purpose (whether it is a meeting, a delivery, a pickup, etc), and any school will unlock its doors for you and allow you in. It isn't like he had to walk in the door with firearms in hand.

After seeing this story as well as the China story, I have a very brief but possible motive. All I am stating is that it is possible (not suggesting that it is) that the CT shooter saw himself as a mercy killer? [Allegedly] killing his parents, and a lot of very young kids, I wonder if it has anything to do with the December 21, 2012 Mayan ordeal?    I could see how a man could convince himself that something very bad was going to happen a week from today, and convince himself that by killing those "closest" to him and a lot of innocent children would actually be sparing them from the things to come.   Not suggesting (as I have to evidence at all to suggest so), but just wondering. Things such as this have certainly happened in the past. And humans can truly convince themselves of truly warped things, and believe 100% of it to be true.

How? If the media was correct in stating he was 20, I believe that is impossible in the state of Connecticut.  But the media has been wrong at least once.

I too find it funny how many people that would be very upset if we were locked in our homes at night with police on patrol around the neighborhood "protecting" us at night are also sometimes the same people that ask that we place armed guards at our schools and lock the doors. Different side of the same police state coin?   I know that in Cleveland, TN, there are quite a few responsible teachers at each school I went to. I remember while I was in elementary school, the principal had all the students go to the gymnasium so that he could speak to them about gun safety not gun control. He had a few officers there and also a firearm or two. He was very respectful of them, and even spoke about how what rifles would be good for someone's first. If he had wanted to get his HCP, I would be just as comfortable with him having a firearm on school grounds as I would be an officer. Please note that the guidance counselor and principal were both killed in CT. Surely one of the administrative adults in the office would have been responsible enough for a firearm?    In all my years of primary education, I can think of at least a few teachers at each school that I would not worry about at all having a firearm on campus. I also argue that if you continue to college you should be allowed to conceal if you have a HCP. I am very saddened by the news from CT, my heart weeps for those that have been affected by this, but in the spirit of freedom I argue that tragedies such as these are a small price to pay for true freedom. Like others have pointed out, many more than 18 people will die today due to automobile accidents. You don't see people fight for automobiles being banned. Actually, it is customary that we give keys to kids at the age of 16. I can remember several classmates I went to high school with that died while driving (irresponsibly). Those deaths could have been prevented if we had simply banned automobiles! But automobiles are here to stay, and those deaths are [preventable] "accidents". They are written off as "a cost of freedom".    I ask the question as to whether any states allow for parents/teachers to conceal while on the premises? I found this about Alabama, and I think it is translated to yes.        That's the way weapon laws should be worded: It is illegal to carry or possess a deadly weapon with the intent to do bodily harm. Because all other wordings fail miserably at preventing any real crime and actually encourage it.

I am very curious about what news may come of this. What caused a 20 year old male to do this? What hatred was created in his mind? Killing his mother before going to attack the very school she worked at? If we ever truly discover what caused this madman to go to such lengths, it will be just as twisted a story as any ever.   For anyone interested, check out the Brady Site. For one, I found this in regards to CT:      

Saw this quote on Yahoo:       I don't see how "deadliest" can mean that 15 less people died. Sure, there were more wounded, but deadliest means fatal, right?   This story in CT concerns me in regards to the 2nd Amendment for two reasons:   1) They were kids. That is sure to That's about as big of a sensitive issue that you can get.   2) [Reportedly] the gunman was 20, that's not a legal age to purchase handguns from an FFL. According to what I've found on the internet, the minimum age for possessing and transporting handguns in CT is 21. If the gunman was indeed only 20, could this be the ammunition needed to end all private firearm sales?

More of the same conversation material (received this in email form):      

SWIM: Someone who isn't me   I know that in my law class at UTC we briefly talked about a case in which some feds were using some sort of classifieds system to inquire about gun purchases. In one instance they found a guy in TN (I believe) and pressured him into meeting them in Georgia to sell them a gun. He eventually gave in to the peer pressure and met them. They attempted to bring charges against him but he got a good lawyer and it was concluded that the feds entrapped him by convincing him to do something he normally would not have done.   Besides that, all I have to say is that it is illegal to do any out of state firearm transfer unless you go through an FFL. There are maybe a few exceptions, such as the military personal one.        Possibly both. I would say steer clear away from such a deal. OR...go through an FFL. If you were to gamble on "not getting caught" and got caught, $30 for an FFL would be a lot lot cheaper than a good lawyer and any fines, and 20 minutes at an FFL are a whole lot easier than the many days involved with legal issues.