Newton Shooting BUSTED?

Why ask me what's the point when you say I'm free to report whatever I want? That's a terrible contradiction.


The question is.... was anybody aware of this mistake?

Saying you are free to report anything but then asking why you made this choice is not a contradiction at all. Simply because someone is free to do something does not guarantee they will not be questioned on their motives or reasoning behind the action. I was free to report that, as it stood, the OP was misleading. Why? Because I think it is important that we comment or debate things based on the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. One does not contradict the other.

Of course, anyone who followed the breaking news as it happened was aware of this mistake .. as they were also aware of them correcting that second mistake with a third correction based on actual statements given by the Sherriff and Medical Examiner.

Now, at this point it seems clear to me that you do not want to answer the direct question I posed to you about whether you knew that the OP was outdated and incorrect - you simply want to re-direct. I suppose I will just have to gather my own conclusion, rather than ask again. Personally I prefer to think you did not know and were, therefore, not intentionally misleading at the time of the OP.
 
Oh, you talked about the video which I am not interested in because I don't understand what it says :)deaf:). What about the article from the link in OP which states that NBC admitted that there was no assault rifle used? Was that recent or old?

Ok let me see if I can clear this up (and I think I recall one of the videos had cc but I will have to go back and check that to be sure). The article uses a video (the one you will find when you click on the "NBC Admitted ..." title), to support what is said in the article. That being, no assault rifles were used, no it was not just two handguns as we reported earlier but, instead, four. This information came from 'officials' but no names were given. This was all information that came in just hours after the shooting. Following that, the Connecticut Sherriff and the Medical Examiner who dealt with the victims confirmed that the weapons found in the school were a Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips; a Glock 10 mm handgun; and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. The Sherriff and Examiner have remained consistent in their statements to this day. Therefore, I consider that to be the most accurate and current information regarding the weapons.

The linked article is dated Jan 15th but the information it contains is old and inaccurate as I read and reason it.
 
Ok let me see if I can clear this up (and I think I recall one of the videos had cc but I will have to go back and check that to be sure). The article uses a video (the one you will find when you click on the "NBC Admitted ..." title), to support what is said in the article. That being, no assault rifles were used, no it was not just two handguns as we reported earlier but, instead, four. This information came from 'officials' but no names were given. This was all information that came in just hours after the shooting. Following that, the Connecticut Sherriff and the Medical Examiner who dealt with the victims confirmed that the weapons found in the school were a Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips; a Glock 10 mm handgun; and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun. The Sherriff and Examiner have remained consistent in their statements to this day. Therefore, I consider that to be the most accurate and current information regarding the weapons.

The linked article is dated Jan 15th but the information it contains is old and inaccurate as I read and reason it.
Oh shit, I got it so I understand why you wondered what's up with old news which were inaccurate. I am getting out of this thread for good. :lol:
 
Saying you are free to report anything but then asking why you made this choice is not a contradiction at all. Simply because someone is free to do something does not guarantee they will not be questioned on their motives or reasoning behind the action. I was free to report that, as it stood, the OP was misleading. Why? Because I think it is important that we comment or debate things based on the most accurate and up-to-date information possible. One does not contradict the other.

Of course, anyone who followed the breaking news as it happened was aware of this mistake .. as they were also aware of them correcting that second mistake with a third correction based on actual statements given by the Sherriff and Medical Examiner.

Now, at this point it seems clear to me that you do not want to answer the direct question I posed to you about whether you knew that the OP was outdated and incorrect - you simply want to re-direct. I suppose I will just have to gather my own conclusion, rather than ask again. Personally I prefer to think you did not know and were, therefore, not intentionally misleading at the time of the OP.

*shrug*

that's fine. it's amusing to watch you to try to catch an imaginary butterfly.

sorry to disappoint you - http://www.alldeaf.com/current-events/108765-connecticut-school-massacre-7.html#post2133858
 
I reread this thread - based on numerous posts following the OP, I was not the only one who felt the OP was presented as though it was recent information so, no imaginary butterfly.

I don't understand what the part in bold has to do with this, clarify please.

wow.... that post was a hint for you to drop this farce. I really have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at. It's ridiculous.

You're implying that I wasn't aware of this update or whatsoever - I have no idea. There... that post with a link was to show you that I'm very aware of updated information but I was not aware of this NBC's error.

Nobody in here has misunderstood anything. Only you appears to have an issue and that's not my problem. It's best to end this circus journey now and move on.
 
I have no issue other than trying to understand what the exact point of the OP was - clearly it was confusing to me (and others based on some side queries I received) and I was trying to get clarification to alleviate my own confusion. If you had just directly answered my questions in posts 70 and 76 instead of with just questions, we could have been on the same page.

"I'm very aware of updated information but I was not aware of this NBC's error." Thank you, this is all I was trying to understand.

As an aside I will state, as I have done before, I ask questions when I do not understand something. Every question I ask is sincere and I am open to questions asked of me. I want to learn about other's perspectives, not fight over them.
 
I have no issue other than trying to understand what the exact point of the OP was - clearly it was confusing to me (and others based on some side queries I received) and I was trying to get clarification to alleviate my own confusion. If you had just directly answered my questions in posts 70 and 76 instead of with just questions, we could have been on the same page.

"I'm very aware of updated information but I was not aware of this NBC's error." Thank you, this is all I was trying to understand.

As an aside I will state, as I have done before, I ask questions when I do not understand something. Every question I ask is sincere and I am open to questions asked of me. I want to learn about other's perspectives, not fight over them.

oh?

Now, at this point it seems clear to me that you do not want to answer the direct question I posed to you about whether you knew that the OP was outdated and incorrect - you simply want to re-direct. I suppose I will just have to gather my own conclusion, rather than ask again. Personally I prefer to think you did not know and were, therefore, not intentionally misleading at the time of the OP.

quite a steep contradiction to your intention.

now let's move on, shall we? this farce has gone too far and you should have known better. this will be my last and final reply to this.
 
If she bought them private party in some states as I mentioned above, there would be no way to verify what guns she owned... Also it does not matter because the point is the shooter STOLE the guns from his mom to use them to commit mass murder which are already illegal under the law and it did squat to stop him..

Criminals do not follow the laws so stop making stupid laws that only affect law abiding citizens and do zero to prevent these types of crimes...


For all the anti gun folks read this, you won't find the mass media sharing this info.
Some interesting gun facts! Please keep in mind that statistics can be shown one way or the other to further a political agenda!

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

The only person that was stupid in the Newtown shooting was the shooter's mother! She knew he had issues and she was trying to get the court to rule her son mentally incompetent so she cold have him locked up. The mother knew it was not safe to turn her back on her your son and show him how top shot guns. How insane is that.
 
Are you sure? I would be more careful on accusing somebody.

Often when parents beg for help for kids, and they do fall on deaf ears. Insurance coverage denied, red tapes, etc that could be causing mother unable to get help. So wondering if she did ask for help and got denied? If this is the case, then it is the SOCIETY'S fault not her.

Did you realize that in order to get help for autism children is very tough and almost impossible.

The only person that was stupid in the Newtown shooting was the shooter's mother! She knew he had issues and she was trying to get the court to rule her son mentally incompetent so she cold have him locked up. The mother knew it was not safe to turn her back on her your son and show him how top shot guns. How insane is that.
 
I see these kinds of problems, those shooters actually have issue with their mentality, right? Their mental health was in grave ill right? What makes me wondering whats hell wrong with our American society? Oh my god! We better get tighter gun control, must ban assault weapon, make all of these agencies do more work for background check... Yeah spend more money for gun controls and so forth as they are into panic mode... Now here is the question, did our society have ever had any thoughts of trying to help those with mental issues? Did they try to help spend more funds for mental health treatment? Why not? Sadly, our society don't think this way but spend more money on something that could have better use especially those with mental health.

Guess Obama is more interest in power and control than aiding those who really need help. Sad society we live in.

That is why I am opposing any new gun control or any kind of control on firearms. Fix the real problem rather than pretend we sweep these problems under the rug with " Gun control" banner on it.
 
I see these kinds of problems, those shooters actually have issue with their mentality, right? Their mental health was in grave ill right? What makes me wondering whats hell wrong with our American society? Oh my god! We better get tighter gun control, must ban assault weapon, make all of these agencies do more work for background check... Yeah spend more money for gun controls and so forth as they are into panic mode... Now here is the question, did our society have ever had any thoughts of trying to help those with mental issues? Did they try to help spend more funds for mental health treatment? Why not? Sadly, our society don't think this way but spend more money on something that could have better use especially those with mental health.

Guess Obama is more interest in power and control than aiding those who really need help. Sad society we live in.

That is why I am opposing any new gun control or any kind of control on firearms. Fix the real problem rather than pretend we sweep these problems under the rug with " Gun control" banner on it.

In bold - I don't think so because his authority is limited, based on the constitution and the congress won't let him go beyond the authority.

In 2009-2011, Obama did spent a lot of funds to help the people who were hurt by financial crisis, but not anymore after the congress refuse to expand the aid, except for unemployment check, food stamp, etc.
 
No no, you missed my point. Those who are shooters and killed people, these people have mental health issues right? Have you ever hear any single politicians suggesting expand programs and help those with mental health issues? What it appears is that they don't think those with mental health issue need help so, those who had mental health issue may have scream for help and nobody cares, so what they going to do? One way is to shoot people out to prove they are screwed up badly.

Obama could have choose to expand and help those with mental health using his executive power instead but nope, attempt increase control using his executive power on firearms.

In bold - I don't think so because his authority is limited, based on the constitution and the congress won't let him go beyond the authority.

In 2009-2011, Obama did spent a lot of funds to help the people who were hurt by financial crisis, but not anymore after the congress refuse to expand the aid, except for unemployment check, food stamp, etc.
 
No no, you missed my point. Those who are shooters and killed people, these people have mental health issues right? Have you ever hear any single politicians suggesting expand programs and help those with mental health issues? What it appears is that they don't think those with mental health issue need help so, those who had mental health issue may have scream for help and nobody cares, so what they going to do? One way is to shoot people out to prove they are screwed up badly.

Obama could have choose to expand and help those with mental health using his executive power instead but nope, attempt increase control using his executive power on firearms.

I don't know why congress haven't talk about mental health issues - that's good question. I guess they would say - the mental health is state matter or something. It was change from 1950's when many mental health institutions were closed as de-instituionized so put mentally ill who were under control with medicines to placed at private home. After 50 years later, many states neglected on mental healthcare.

I don't know if Obama has resources to sign the executive order to improve the mental health, so maybe - not much choice without congressional approval. Obama can't going say - "I will authorize $100 billions federal funding to improve the mental health cares and make requirement that are not list on law" because the congress has to approve the funding and any requirements for mental health.

The federal government should be "hell" complicated...
 
Get the drift? What I am seeing is that they are going wrong way. If we keep throwing these mental illness patients on the street, gun control will NOT going to stop them. Both programs for gun control and mental health DOES cost money, and if government were smart enough on budget they would more focus on mental health spending rather than gun control spending.

Seriously, Obama would have better use of his executive power and would not have been against US constitution if he were focus on mental health rather than guns itself.

If Americans continue to obsess with gun control, they will never achieve the goal of their obsession UNTIL they change their attitude and approach.

I don't know why congress haven't talk about mental health issues - that's good question. I guess they would say - the mental health is state matter or something. It was change from 1950's when many mental health institutions were closed as de-instituionized so put mentally ill who were under control with medicines to placed at private home. After 50 years later, many states neglected on mental healthcare.

I don't know if Obama has resources to sign the executive order to improve the mental health, so maybe - not much choice without congressional approval. Obama can't going say - "I will authorize $100 billions federal funding to improve the mental health cares and make requirement that are not list on law" because the congress has to approve the funding and any requirements for mental health.
 
Get the drift? What I am seeing is that they are going wrong way. If we keep throwing these mental illness patients on the street, gun control will NOT going to stop them. Both programs for gun control and mental health DOES cost money, and if government were smart enough on budget they would more focus on mental health spending rather than gun control spending.

Seriously, Obama would have better use of his executive power and would not have been against US constitution if he were focus on mental health rather than guns itself.

If Americans continue to obsess with gun control, they will never achieve the goal of their obsession UNTIL they change their attitude and approach.

Is it good idea for millions of us to write a letter to Obama and ask him to drawing the plan to improve the mental health, so tell him to share a plan with congress. The congress can be painful in president's ear.

As second paragraph, if I was gun nut or pro-gun thinking, I agree with you about unconstitutional. With different view, I'm indifferent or unsure about whichever executive orders are constitutional or unconstitutional because it didn't specify about assault weapon ban on executive order. You have US Supreme Court to resolve the dispute. As overall, US Supreme Court will going take care of those problem and Obama's executive orders target federal agents, rather than gun owners.

Could you check the 23 executive orders and please tell me - which are unconstitutional? Just say numbers like from 1 to 23.
Here Are Obama's 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence - Politics - The Atlantic Wire

If Obama uses executive order on mental health, so it could be unconstitutional without our knowledge because like you said - the court is priceless.

Last paragraph, that's true and I'm not concerned about guns, before or after CT school shooting. Many Americans are too, too overreacted so I think you will agree with me.
 
Is it good idea for millions of us to write a letter to Obama and ask him to drawing the plan to improve the mental health, so tell him to share a plan with congress. The congress can be painful in president's ear.

the easiest solution? be a filthy rich lobbyist.
 
Yeah, but there is another way... ORGANIZED, so don't need filthy rich to begin with. Wait until organization grows to greedy filthy rich then go ahead. Ya know?

the easiest solution? be a filthy rich lobbyist.
 
Yeah, but there is another way... ORGANIZED, so don't need filthy rich to begin with. Wait until organization grows to greedy filthy rich then go ahead. Ya know?

organization requires $$$$$. it doesn't grow without money. a filthy rich lobbyist has both money and organization.
 
Back
Top