Regarding the Sandy Hook School massacre
I wasn't sure which forum to post this in. Will the moderator please move it if it's not appropriate here, to the appropriate forum.
I just sent this letter to my Congressman. I encourage each of you to do the same. Much is at stake here. Way more than just assault rifles.
Dear Congressman Ribble:
The purpose of this correspondence is to voice my opposition to any further ban on any particular type of weapon or on any high capacity magazine. Any new broad sweeping gun controls based on the current mass hysteria will not stop the carnage. Please excuse my rambling a bit. I'm fully aware that this is a very sensitive and emotional issue because of the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook School.
I have two daughters and 5 grandchildren. My deepest sympathies go out to all those who lost loved ones by the senseless act of an obviously crazed individual at the Sandy Hook School massacre. I can't even begin to comprehend the grief of those who lost children. Had I been there, I pray to God I would have the courage of those who gave their lives to save others.
I have a concealed carry permit and own many high capacity weapons. If I truly believed that turning in my so called assault weapons would save even one life, I would gladly do so in a heartbeat. But I know, that one single act on my part would have absolutely no effect on carnage such as Sandy Hook.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. And to counter that with "yes but these deranged people use guns," is a false and misleading premise. If there were, quite literally, absolutely no guns anywhere in the the world, carnage such as this would still take place, by some other means. Matthew 2:16 "Then Herod slew all the children that were in Bethlehem from two years old and under." Jeremiah 31:15 "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children, because they were not."
I'm so tired of the emotionally filled diatribe by most of the national news networks calling for more gun control. And Dianne Feinstein's hysterical diatribe on Piers Morgan's broadcast was just as emotional and without merit. I don't doubt her sincerity, but she's sincerely wrong. Her hysterical diatribe merely fuels the fire for a totally ineffective solution. While legislating against evil is necessary, it does not "stop" evil. Just look at our over crowded prisons.
Deranged perpetrators simply slip through the cracks. How can we possibly know the thoughts and motivations of every single individual? I just heard one psychologist say that such people can appear perfectly "normal." Mass murderers such as the Boston strangler (Albert DeSalvo), TBK (Dennis Radner), the Hillside strangler (Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono), Ted Bundy, and the Oklahoma bombing by Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people, many of whom were children, and injured over 800, to name but a few, did not use guns to commit their mass murders. And we can't forget 911 where planes, not guns, were used to masacre thousands. Around the world there are hundreds, if not thousands, of serial killers and mass murderers who did not use guns. And what about suicide bombers, Hitlers gas chambers, the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate suicides by poison, and Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas. And this list goes on and on of those who did not use guns to commit horrific acts. Try as we might, we simply can't stop all evil. That's not to say we can't take some measures to curtail it. But in this case, bans are not the answer.
Entire industries have been built around high capacity so called assault weapons and high capacity pistols. Any poorly thought out legislation will have a huge and drastically negative economic impact, and will not stop the carnage. It will simply take a different form.
A very common handgun is the 8 shot 45 caliber Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol. It's been readily available for decades. Millions are in circulation. It can be quickly reloaded in the blink of an eye and is capable of the same type of carnage as occurred at Sandy Hook. Would you ban it? What about the high capacity Beretta 92 which is our armed forces current sidearm, and owned by millions of law abiding citizens. Would you ban it? I sincerely hope you can see that none of these bans will work. Where would the banning stop? Banning high capacity assault weapons and magazines would simply cause the use of other type of weapons, to accomplish the same dreadful end. Again, where would the banning end? I don't have the answer to the problem. I simply know that banning will not accomplish what we all want.
We've already gone way to far down so many slippery slopes. Every year in this country millions die from cigarettes, alcohol, and abortion. Yet these are all legal activities. We've taken God out of our schools. Our military chaplains can't use the name of Jesus. The unfettered greed of Wall Street has brought us to the fiscal brink. The violence on TV, in video games, and in movies, has escalated dreadfully. The war on drugs has failed miserably. We have twelve million illegal immigrants. Gangs run rampant in cities. And you wonder why we're having so many of these mass tragedies. Our culture has changed, and not in all instances for the better. Our core values have become polluted by liberalism and political correctness. Common sense and individual freedoms are being torn asunder. I will defend unto death, a persons right to hold and express an opposing view. But I don't have to like, condone, or agree with it. In fact, I have an obligation to speak out against it, in a civil manner, when it conflicts with my deeply held convictions.
Just because I own high capacity weapons, what happened at Sandy Hook was not my fault. Those of us "of sound mind" who own high capacity weapons are not the bad guys. Any further bans will not stop this kind of carnage, all the gun control in the world notwithstanding. Find another way.
I'm a retired teacher. I spent 8 years in the Marine Corps (Gunnery Sergeant E7) and am a Viet Nam veteran. I used the G.I. bill to go to college. I've served my country, worked all my life, paid my taxes, raised a family, and served on jury duty. Now, after being a responsible citizen who has owned high capacity weapons, including so called assault rifles, for many years, the Sandy Hook tragedy has somehow made it evil for me to own such weapons.
I admit to being a "gun nut". Since my Marine Corps days, I've thoroughly enjoyed all facets of the shooting sport. But my guns also serve a very useful purpose. I live in a very rural area with no local police force. I choose to own high capacity weapons, including so called high capacity assault rifles, for defensive purposes. And I practice with them on a regular basis. Who's to say I have no need for such weapons? Police have them. Why should I now be deprived of them to protect myself and my loved ones just because a crazed individual used one to commit a horrific act? What do his actions have to do with me? In effect, a ban would insinuate that I'm no longer responsible enough to own such weapons, but I am responsible enough to own other weapons. This is ludicrous. And who's to say how many rounds I may need in a defensive scenario? Will 2, 10, or 25 be enough? We can't possibly know. And I'm not just talking about assault weapons. Many, if not most, popular semi-auto pistols have a 15+ magazine capacity. A very popular Glock pistol can accommodate a 32 round magazine. Where would you draw the line? How much capacity is to much? God forbid I should ever have to use any of my weapons for self defense, but in such a scenario, one can not have "to much" capacity. Would you limit me to a six shot revolver for defense when evil perpetrators, who do not follow the law, will still surely have high capacity weapons? And semi auto pistols can be reloaded extremely fast, so any attempt to limit their capacity would be fruitless. Try as one might, further bans are not the answer. It's merely a panacea to calm the mass hysteria in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
I strongly urge you and your colleagues to resist any attempts to implement any new bans on any particular type of weapon or on high capacity magazines as such new bans will serve no purpose other than to further degrade my personal liberties and my ability to defend myself and my loved ones effectively. They will NOT stop or curtail the carnage such as occurred at Sandy Hook, popular opinion and mass hysteria notwithstanding. May cooler heads prevail. Find another way.
From Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". "O, what men dare do! What men may do! What men daily do, not knowing what they do!"
Although a response would be nice, I really don't expect one. Surprise me.
Regretfully and respectfully submitted,
Re: Regarding the Sandy Hill School massacre
Very well put. I hope you get a reponse. But I too doubt it.
Re: Regarding the Sandy Hill School massacre
Clear and elegant, but the real issue is so hard to define (mental health & cracks in society) that instead of having and open discussion. Politicians tend to look for sound bites, two to eight word phrases that get them air time and imply knowledge even if they lack true understanding. I to will write my representative, but worry that a wave of emotion will cloud judgement. There is a reason or government was designed to operate at a snails pace, and it was to allow for cooler heads to prevail.
Psst. It wasn't Sandy Hill School. It was Sandy Hook School. Do you have time to change your letter before sending it or is that too late?
Send your representitives this..In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, leave it to the state-run media and politicians who surround themselves with armed security at all times to offer up exactly the wrong prescription to stopping the slaughter of more innocents.
It was as predictable as clockwork that those who seek a state monopoly on firepower would exploit a tragedy like this to push for unconstitutional, counter-productive, anti-American solutions to a mess they helped create.
Let me give you some things to think about – things you won’t likely hear or read elsewhere.
First, consider why Israel, a nation surrounded by madmen who seek to kill innocent Jewish children any way they can, has rarely seen the kinds of mayhem America witnessed in Newtown, Conn. I can show you in one simple photograph that doesn’t require any further explanation.
It’s a fact that many mass murders like the one we witnessed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School were averted because innocent children and adults were not left defenseless. Here are just a handful of examples:
On Oct. 1, 1997, Luke Woodham, 16, part of a satanic cult, stabbed and bludgeoned his mother before driving her car to Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., where he shot dead two students and wounded seven others with a rifle he made no attempt to conceal. He then got back into his mother’s car and planned to go to Pearl Junior High School to kill some more. But assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45-caliber pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham.
On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law campus in Virginia with a handgun and killed three and wounded three others. At the sound of gunfire, two other students – both police officers – retrieved guns from their cars. Meanwhile, another police officer and former Marine jumped Odighizuwa and disarmed him by the time the other officers got to the scene.
On Aug. 23, 1995, a band of crack cocaine addicts entered a store in Muskegon, Mich., with a plan to kill everyone and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their habit. One member of the gang shot store owner Clare Cooper in the back four times. He still managed to grab his shotgun and fire on the gang as they fled. They were all apprehended.
On Dec. 9, 2007, a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray launched an attack on the congregants of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs that left two victims dead. A former police officer, Jeanne Assam, a member of the security team for the church, shot Murray 10 times, killing him, as he was shooting at her. Murray had killed four others at a church 70 miles away earlier in the day.
On July 24, 2012, Richard Gable Stevens rented a rifle at a shooting range in Santa Clara, Calif., and herded three employees out the door, saying he intended to kill them. One of the employees, however, was carrying a .45-caliber handgun and shot the assailant.
On Dec. 17, 1991, two men armed with stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into a walk-in refrigerator and locked it so they could rob the establishment. However, one customer was armed with a .45-caliber handgun hidden under a table. He shot one of the gunmen dead. The other robber, who was holding the manager of the restaurant at gunpoint, began firing at the customer. But he was wounded critically by return fire, ending the incident.
On July 13, 2009, an armed man entered the Golden Food Market in south Richmond, shooting and wounding a clerk while firing at store patrons. He was shot by another customer who had a concealed-carry permit, likely saving the lives of eight other people in the store.
On July 29, 2012, Charles Conner shot and killed two people and their dogs at the Peach Tree RV park in Early, Texas. Vic Stacy got a call from one of the neighbors, got his .357 magnum and shot Conner in the leg. Police arrived before any further killings could take place.
The truth is that every single day mass murders are averted by armed civilians.
Yet, every time there is a horrendous slaughter like we saw at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a knee-jerk outcry for stricter control of guns.
Wait a minute! The perpetrator of this crime stole his weapons from his mother’s house after murdering her! He tried to buy a rifle days before, but was turned down.
No law could have stopped that short of disarming all law-abiding Americans. And that would just mean more death and carnage – and the end of liberty for all.
The massacre at Sandy Hook could have been minimized, if not averted completely, if just one teacher or administrator at the school was armed – one teacher like you see in that picture from Israel.
Your letter is way too long,they'll pass it on by.Excellent but too long when they see it.
What Provost posted is also excellent,but unfortunately makes 0 sense to those reading it no matter how true,it's just politically incorrect to let the masses that support the socialist agenda to know facts.If they do find out,there's a new enima thrown at them to curb their misunderstanding of the radical propaganda they hear about.How do you think we still deal with the POS again for 4 years?
We're coming to the next revolution if somebody in our so called government doesn't grow some balls and get some backing,because about 1/2 the union is fed up and is ready to say F off,see ya.That's not a good picture at all,who's responsible for the existing debt D.A.N. (dumb ass ...) wants to raise the ceiling on?
PS. Sorry for the rudeness and I expect a spanking for this,but the truth is the truth.I'm not a big religious person but God help us,or let the wrath begin and end this crap.
Also read posts #33, 34, and 42, at: Another shooting?
Mental-health professionals continue to assert that Asperger's/autistic people are incapable of violence, even in the face of the anecdotal evidence of the parents of these children and teens.
These parents try hard to find help for their children and themselves, but our Politically Correct society refuses to acknowledge that any sort of help is necessary.
One mother of a violent autistic teen was told that the very best way for her to get help would be to let her son commit a serious crime!
I agree with 99% of everything you've been saying about the mental health and such
Originally Posted by Steve M1911A1
However, I can tell you that Autistic people indeed ARE capable of violence. We had such a kid in my high school AND another kid in my college both with autism and both actually extremely violent. I will say I do believe they are in the minority but it was strange to see two accounts of it. I'm in the psychology department at my school and they have been saying that the drugs we give these people SSRI and SRI (serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can increase violent and psychopathic tendencies tenfold
I caught that error and changed it. I did see it referenced as Sandy Hill on some search engines. I also made some other revisions.
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
Thanks Rex. I thought about that. One suggestion I read said to keep it under 4 paragraphs. But I just had to much to say. I'm hoping other members will use some or all of this in a letter to their representatives. Or at least it will give them some ideas on what to write.
Originally Posted by rex
-even the NRA is going to make concessions . Our constitutional rights have been gradually stripped away over the years. 9/11 was the beginning of the end.
I own assault weapons ; but after those poor children were slaughtered - I vowed to support the banning of them .
Why does ANYONE NEED a gun that can kill more then 20 people in less then a minute ?? You might say it's your God given right ,protected by the Constitution .
Let me clue you in - our government gives two shits about your "rights" and God ain't gonna intervene when his innocent children are getting slaughtered .
In order for the Government to stay in power ;
their gonna have to get ALL the guns out of ALL the peoples hands . If you live long enough and if our economy doesn't collapse first - YOU WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN ALL GUNS ARE OUTLAWED .
Hi Paul. I have children and grandchildren. Tears filled my eyes when I watched what happened at Sandy Hook. I sincerely understand your personal decision to give up your assault weapons. I simply want what ever is legal to protect my loved ones. Currently, high capacity assault weapons are legal. If someone could positively and absolutely assure me that all I'll ever need to cover every possible defense scenario is one of my 15+ shot semi-auto handguns, I'd gladly surrender all of my other defensive weapons. But such an assurance is not possible. And, the bad guys will always be able to get any kind of weapon they desire, high capacity assault rifles included. Drugs have always been banned. Yet they're readily available.
Originally Posted by PAWPAUL
Originally Posted by PAWPAUL
That was pretty good! Now comes the hard part, will anyone listen?
Moderator. Please delete this post.
As a gun owner, you should know that the killer did NOT use an "assault weapon". He used a semi-automatic rifle. As a gun owner, you should also know that it is difficult and very expensive and time consuming to purchase an assault rifle. And as gun owner, you should know that no crimes have been committed with legally owned assault rifles since 1934 - and that one was by a cop.
Originally Posted by PAWPAUL
As a gun owner, you should be ashamed of making a statement such as this: "Why does ANYONE NEED a gun...". My suggestion to you is to turn in all of your guns and join the other side because it is clear from your post, you do not wish to be among folks like us.
Even if all crime suddenly disappeared, why on earth would you be willing to surrender your firearms? Don't you enjoy shooting them, holding them, looking at them, and just admiring them? Even if no more crimes were committed, wouldn't you want to still enjoy something you have been enjoying? If no one was ever injured or killed in car accidents and mass transit was available everywhere, would you be willing to give up your car?
Originally Posted by genesis
Am I missing something here?
To give up your firearms is to give up your freedom. This is coming from an American, and I don't give a hoot what they do in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, etc......In a free country of some 313 million some of those are going to be evil psychopaths, mentally deficient, murderers, crminally insane, etc. How any person could do such a heinious act is beyond any form of comprehension.
Last edited by denner; 12-19-2012 at 04:45 PM.
I personally think that some of you miss the mark about the second amendment. Its not about hunting, or sports shooting. Its about our god given rights that are insured by the constitution. The framers of the constitution placed it in the bill of rights so that the citizens of the United States of America would have one last recourse against at goverment that could be too intusive in our daily lives. Today the citizens of the USA could if united would be the largest army in the world and return our country to what it should be, and has prevented any invasion into our country for years (remember WWII) nobody wants to wake the sleeping giant. Just remember it our rights as granted by our creator, and only insured by the consitution not granted by the consitution.
but that my 2 cents worth
Shoot safe and have fun doing it
Is the whole country going crazy its like none of them took social studies
Search tags for this page
guns used in sandy hill
sandy hill guns used
sandy hill massacre
sandy hill shooting weapons used
sandy hill weapons
sandy hill weapons used
sandyhill weapons used
weapon used at sandy hill
weapons used at sandy hill
what weapon was used at sandy hilll
what weapons were used in the sandy hill shooting
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» Springfield Armory
» HGF Sponsors