View Full Version : Gunman shoots in elementary school in Connecticut
iris lily
12-17-12, 11:31pm
Are you familiar with the many thousands of existing laws on the books? Many of which don't get enforced, except when convenient?
Not specifically but since I'm skeptical of the Gooberment to much of anything well, you hardly need to convince me that more gun laws or laws of any kind won't do the trick.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 11:48pm
Oh it's perfectly understandable why any 22 year old is depressed. If they didn't get a college education then the job prospects are bleak, they may just end up working service for life. Or if they did get a college education, they might still be in school because good luck getting classes at state schools, or they went into crazy debt for private schools. All for jobs that aren't there when they graduate and were never all that great to begin with (but at used they used to kind of provide a middle class living). Oh and by the way we've trashed the planet, and there is a very good chance the human race has already signed on to it's early extinction, maybe you'll be lucky enough to witness it, plan on ever worsening conditions, droughts, etc, don't even think about bringing kids into this nightmare ... But still very few become crazy psycho killer.
freein05
12-18-12, 12:20am
What is a "clip"?...
Hint: Garands have "clips". AR-15 derivatives have "magazines". The AR design has been in service since 1963, the design is from 1957. Did you serve before this, and lack familiarity with the firearms of the past 60 years or so?
Or is your use of "clip" in your previous posts simply indicative of a lack of knowledge of modern firearms and proper nomenclature?
I use the word clip because that is what we used to call them in the old days and have not changed my terminology. I served in the army from 1965 to 1968. The army was just changing from the M14 to the M16. I qualified with both. I only qualified as a sharp shooter. Later when I was assigned to 24th infantry division I was assigned to a machine gun crew and qualified with an M60 machine gun. My MOS was aircraft electrician but when you are assigned to an infantry division you are an infantry men first and a aircraft electrician second.
At that time no body took the time to call a clip a magazine. It took too long to say if you needed one in a hurry. But that was real life in the army at that time. My brother was in the army at the same time in Vietnam and I was in Germany. In Vietnam they sure did't take the time to call a clip a magazine in the heat of a fire fight but that is real life in war.
He was a door gunner on a Huey.
So you are 50 years out of date on tactics, technology, and terminology. Got it. Your "you only need 10 rounds" bit tells us that too.
Q: why do police officers no longer generally carry revolvers, but rather modern semi-automatic pistols with standard-size magazines in the 15-20 round range?
Q: what is the standard training protocol taught in today's firearms academies for using that number of rounds effectively?
I maintain you are trotting out the "I was in the Army, so I'm a firearms expert", when in fact, your facts are...few on the ground.
freein05
12-18-12, 12:49am
BAE I am out of hear. Please carry on with playing with your gun, if you know what I mean.
BAE I am out of hear. Please carry on with playing with your gun, if you know what I mean.
Lovely how you find it necessary to attack the sexuality of someone you disagree with. Telling though.
Bae,
For me personally, the most frustrating thing to come out of this is how so few people actually know anything about what gun laws are in place, how they work and whether and how they are enforced, as well as what guns are categorized as what and how the standards are different based on the gun in question AND the state itself (and sometimes county).
Everyone acts like it's all one standard thing across the board. And, as if there are no controls, or as if the controls that they say they want don't already exist.
And then, when you point out what those laws are, or the other complexities of the law (5th amendment, 14th amendment), you get attacked as if you don't know anything, don't care about the issue, or are somehow "part of the problem."
Part of hte problem is just bare ignorance. (And I'm not talking about anyone on here specifically, mostly people on FB both national and internationals with whom I speak). So many statements are literally just knee-jerk emotional responses, and if you just bring up a counter statement, it's like you are evil and get attacked. It's so annoying!
Today, it happened three times:
1. I'm so glad I live in a country with gun control, unlike the US! Perhaps they'll now come into the modern era. -- "The US has a myriad of gun control laws, which fall in alignment -- right down the middle -- with european gun laws. In fact, many of the laws in NZ are the same in California, and probably several other states (links!).
2. "Every time this happens, the US reacts exactly the same -- plenty of talk about gun control, but no action, no changes in the laws." I pointed out changes in the laws since columbine, which is the first that I can remember, and the wikipedia page actually had several others listed, so I linked that as well.
I obviously need to "go and polish my gun collection." Forget the fact that I don't own any guns and never have, and have only had the most miniscule opportunity to hold, let alone shoot, one.
3. One person asserted that he's frustrated that whenever he talks about these things from different angles (ie, that he believes in basically looking at the laws we have and see which ones are working and whihc ones aren't and why, and then adapt based on our current knowledge rather than emotions) that he gets accused of not advocating for "gun control!" and wanting 'all guns to be accessible" -- which is clearly not true.
I pointed out frustrated agreement, which lead to being considered some sort of "right wing nut job with no clear agenda other than to kill children."
Yes, that's exactly what I am. You are so right.
No, the reality is that I am a liberal, but I want to take a balanced approach to these things that takes into consideration not only fact-based research (as I posted early on), but also our own political and cultural history around guns and gun ownership, as well as an understanding of the technologies themselves (about which I know very little, btw). And from there, come up with laws that balance all of this information into functional, easy-to-enforce policy for the welfare of our society.
Duh.
Making the rounds on FB. Rather intense, it's an instructional vid about how to respond to an active shooter situation. Made by the city of Houston.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5VcSwejU2D0
Hey folks,
it's unnecessary to play dirty here, whether it be bae's comments about to free about being out of date, with the implication that s/he has an invalid stance, or free's comments back. Please, if disrespect is entering the fray, it's time for a breather, IMHO.
thanks.
Sorry Red, that won't fly. It is not "playing dirty" to point out that his facts simply aren't, and that at best he is out of date, and really, his conclusions about those specific points *are* invalid, as evidenced by the curriculum at almost every modern-day training facility in this country.
If facts are "disrespectful", well...
There is simply no equivalence to me pointing out factual problems relatively gently, and him attacking my sexuality.
Sorry Red, that won't fly. It is not "playing dirty" to point out that his facts simply aren't, and that at best he is out of date, and really, his conclusions about those specific points *are* invalid, as evidenced by the curriculum at almost every modern-day training facility in this country. If facts are "disrespectful", well...There is simply no equivalence to me pointing out factual problems relatively gently, and him attacking my sexuality.
Perhaps not. Both seemed disrespectful to me, that is the equivalence I see. We're all passionate & smart, and this is such a significant issue. The manner in which is as important as the facts, and it's hard to read "voice" in words on a screen. Nonetheless, I heard contempt in your statement. My apologies if that was not the case.
I was just speaking on general frustration, not asserting that anyone was right/wrong or disrespectful or whatever. In my mind, though, telling someone to 'go play with their gun' (which is also one that i got), is just ad hominem straight up.
As opposed to a truly respectful: I disagree. Here is what I advocate and why." and if i -- say on FB again -- say but what about the 14th amendment, they talk about "yes, we need more help for people who are mentally ill." True, but not truly at issue in terms of gun control -- that's a whole other set of law (health care related stuff). So if we are talking about gun control and mental health screenings, we are talking 14th amendment stuff. God forbid someone ask a question about how to overcome those issues with what they're advocating without being told to "go play with your guns" or "sorry that you're such a right-wing nut job." Or, even better, "everyone should have to go through weekly checks in their homes to make sure their guns are safe -- one I heard today because 'we ticket for people who don't wear bicycle helmets on the road, afterall. Ok, not comparable law -- because you are freely out in freaking public AND you're only likely to hurt yourself if you happen to fall off your bike, and all of the sudden the 5th amendment for search without cause is somehow considered hunky-dory?
Ask that question, and you obviously don't care about little kids who live in homes with "live" weapons. Seeing as most of my high school friends (who are male) live in homes with both weapons and small children, I actually DO care and I also know that responsible parenting may or may not coincide with gun ownership, but I don't think illegal search and seizure (or 5th amendment due process concerns) should really go there.
Doesn't make me a bad person to be concerned about weekly police checks or asserting that it's possibly wrong-headed to use a vague term like "limiting access to 'mentally ill' people is a problem under the 14th amendment. it's too vague is part of the problem, and mental illness is too shifty to create a clear line. and how we get access to whehter or not a person is mentally ill? That's probably another 5th amendment issue.
Yes, bringing up these concerns is NOT about guns. It could be about access to raw milk for freak's sake (and it often is, btw, in the circles where I run). Guns are just the current "idea" at play. The 14th amendment had to do with a lot of different things, incluing access to educational resources, so. . . yeah.
I was thinking today about how many young people Adam's age that I meet today are depressed and on prescription drugs. They just aren't grounded. When you have a job you enjoy, get a good daily physical workout, have healthy sexual release, and are able to support yourself and pay your bills, you are balanced. You set goals and hopefully work towards those goals and achieve them. You have friends and romance, and you enjoy life. When I was 22, I was having the time of my life! I felt on top of the world. I was talking to my neighbor about it, and she feels that these kids have no hope. (She has two boys in their early twenties. One is in jail.) Most of them still live with their parents, so they have conflict over rules and they don't mature the way they would if they were living on their own.
I wonder how many of the young adults I meet are really emotionally disturbed. (I don't mean Adam.) I've had students in this age bracket come to my class and tell me afterwards, "I did drugs, I cut myself, I drank," and on and on... It's like they are proud of their self destructive lifestyles and want sympathy. There's just such a heaviness of self pity to them. I don't know if it's all the technology, reality t.v., or what. I was very happy and excited about life at that age. It's really a shame.
Well said awakenedsoul. I have also felt a sense of ??? from people. I'm not exactly sure what it is. Part hopeless, part powerless, certainly disconnected, quite a bit of that self-pity, etc. Your choice of the word "heaviness" was, I thought, well done. In my very limited observations I don't see this as being confined to the younger set, although I agree it is more prevalent and manifests itself in different ways there than in people with a little more life experience. It's probably a miracle that anyone can stay grounded these days. The sensory overload from media of all kinds, a near constant stream of messages telling us how wonderful life could be if we just did this or bought that, the mind numbing array of violent images and portrayals of violent acts and on and on. We should probably be thankful that the Sandy Hooks only happen once in a great while rather than monthly, or weekly...or daily.
I could not wait to get out of the house and on my own when I was a teen. Don't get me wrong, my upbringing was pure Leave it to Beaver, I was just impatient. The country was in the middle of a deep recession at that time, but (thanks to the jack of all trades mentality farm kids get) I KNEW I would find a job, and did. I was hopeful and excited. I also had skills that most 18 year olds today don't. I could operate machinery, garden, raise animals, drive trucks, read/write/speak in complete sentences, weld, hunt, fish, cook, do laundry, fix almost anything with duct tape and baling wire (the rancher's tool kit), etc. Having those basic skills gives you an incredible sense of independence. I'm not convinced mastering Halo or being an i phone guru does the same thing.
You are right about a lack of that kind of hope these days. Maybe the answer has nothing to do with hardware at all. Maybe this is really a software problem. If so, that's too bad because I don't see even the slightest chance that western society is capable of dealing with that. That really would require a kinder, gentler approach. Can you imagine pounding your fist on the table and declaring 'we need to ban depression because it KILLS people'? No sense in saying 'you can have my Wellbutrin when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers'. No room for political grandstanding or chest pounding or much of anything beyond calm, rational, gentle understanding. Simply put, we suck at that.
I have been thinking about this, and I don't think anyone could have stopped this crazy from doing what he did. Not his mother, who was heavily armed and trained in gun use apparently, or armed teachers (because of the above listed confusion/wild west scenario) People like this, unfortunately, will find a way. Yes, the semi-automatic guns made it possible for him to kill a large number in a relatively short time, but disturbed people will find a way.
What I think really needs to be addressed are the countless killings going on everyday, one on one. I believe first there needs to be standards across the board as far as buying, selling, and registration of guns. This is an area I think the federal government needs to be in charge, in that every state should have the same regulations as far as buying/selling/registration. Other laws, like hunting regulations, conceal carry, etc...could be state by state, as each state wishes. We cannot buy/sell a car without registering it, and need to renew that registration every year. And if you buy a car, you can trace that cars history back to it's 'birth' if you want/need. the same should be for guns. And it shouldn't matter if you buy from a dealer, or me to you, it should be registered each time. That way, if that gun is recovered at a crime scene, or found in the possession of a criminal, it can be traced back to the last person who legally owned it. If that person, (if not the criminal) can show it was stolen (police report) then they are not responsible. If however, they cannot account for the criminal having that gun, they should be held responsible, along with the criminal, for the crime. This protects the legitimate gun owner/collector if his gun is stolen in a robbery or whatever. This also would help to greatly stem the 'mules' who go to gun shows with their lily white records and purchase guns to resell to criminals. It would quickly become apparent if one persons guns repeatedly showed up at crime scenes.
Further, if anyone is in possession of a gun where the registration numbers have been rubbed off/altered, they should be charged, immediately. In this case, either you bought a gun with the numbers altered, or you altered them yourself. Either way you should be charged. This should be a crime in itself, and may already be, I don't know. Now, assuming all responsible gun owners want to stop senseless gun crime, these requirements seem quite reasonable. Not difficult or onerous. No ones rights being taken away, except the guy who wants to sell a gun under the table to less than desirable persons.
The registration process could be as straight forward, and simple, as car registration. It could even be held by the same office. And every responsible gun owner/collector would be glad to do it as it would be there largely to protect them. Someone is getting these guns somewhere. And no, these brain surgeon gang bangers aren't 'making' all their own guns, or having them imported, which could also be registered, by the way. They are getting them from friends who buy at gun shows in lax states, or steal them, or buy them from a friend who bought them from a friend, who bought them...etc..
I don't like guns, and I don't like how heavily armed America is. If you have a gun in the home, no matter how responsible you are, the likely hood of someone being shot, either accidentally, or in the heat of a moment, or suicide, is greatly increased. I believe the figures are 4 times more likely.
But, armed we are, and that's not going to change. So let's just put it back on the responsible gun owners. Let's just make them responsible for every gun out there. I would think every well trained, responsible gun owner out there would welcome the chance to prove it.
Well put, Peggy and Gregg.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-18-12, 10:09am
Look around the world and learn. In the UK and Australia similar incidents resulted in guns being banned. For the life of me I can't understand why, in the US, carrying a gun is a right but Universal Healthcare is a privilege.
As long as damaged people have relatively easy access to weapons then can anyone honestly say other school shootings won't occur? Sooner rather than later.
Look around the world and learn. In the UK and Australia similar incidents resulted in guns being banned. For the life of me I can't understand why, in the US, carrying a gun is a right but Universal Healthcare is a privilege.
Because the US was founded as a nation of sovereign individuals and the possession of firearms was central enough to the guarantee of sovereignty to be enshrined within our constitution. Whereas universal healthcare (available to all believe it or not) has been twisted to mean a collectivist entitlement, the antithesis of sovereignty.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-18-12, 10:34am
Because the US was founded as a nation of sovereign individuals and the possession of firearms was central enough to the guarantee of sovereignty to be enshrined within our constitution. Whereas universal healthcare (available to all believe it or not) has been twisted to mean a collectivist entitlement, the antithesis of sovereignty.
This may be important to you but I wonder if it's really that important to the grieving parents of dead children? The UK, and many other countries, has managed without a written constitution for a 1000 years.
The UK, and many other countries, has managed without a written constitution for a 1000 years.That's correct, I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the UK's version of a constitution has historically been a collection of governing documents, parliamentary conventions and royal perogatives, although recently based on parliamentary sovereignty. We chose individual over parliamentary and crafted a constitution limiting government's power (theoretically) rather than allowing it to be the source of all power.
iris lily
12-18-12, 11:17am
Hey folks,
it's unnecessary to play dirty here, whether it be bae's comments about to free about being out of date, with the implication that s/he has an invalid stance, or free's comments back. Please, if disrespect is entering the fray, it's time for a breather, IMHO.
thanks.
Why do you feel the need to direct this discussion? I don't see the word "moderator" under your name. This board traditionally needs less, not more, moderator intervention IMO although recent times are good.
catherine
12-18-12, 11:44am
Why do you feel the need to direct this discussion? I don't see the word "moderator" under your name.
Actually, look again :)
Redfox, have you been "promoted" here lately?
I have attended several of Col. Grossman's classes in the past, and have found the. helpful. I thought some of you might find this of interest:
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
Had to look closer, thought we were in PP for a minute...
iris lily
12-18-12, 12:43pm
Actually, look again :)
Redfox, have you been "promoted" here lately?
hey-- you are right, it is Over her name not Under.
Redfox is carrying on the long standing tradition of over-moderation on this board but for a brief 2 year respite. I realize that "over moderation" is in the eye of the reader but for the record, I protest.
awakenedsoul
12-18-12, 12:57pm
Gregg,
That's what I'm talking about. I noticed when I was teaching that the kids that were cooperative and excelling were disciplined and grounded. They had chores. They were required to do them. They respected their parents and authority. They came home exhausted and hungry after busting their bums in dance class. After which they ate dinner, took a relaxing bath, and fell into bed. All of this sitting around, and texting, and staying inside seems so counterproductive and idle to me. Using your talents is grounding. Getting up early and going to work is grounding. Having your own bank account, paying your own bills, and saving money is grounding. You and I both left home early. I rented a room from a working class mother who was on her second dead beat husband. I helped her with grocery shopping, drove her daughter to ballet, (we both had pro careers in dance after that,) helped her with the dishes, etc. I just don't think kids are doing that anymore. I had the 4:30 a.m. shift at MacDonalds, and at 17, I thought that was a terrific job and was very proud of myself. I didn't think I was too good for minimum wage. Just the independence of leaving home, being around people you admire and wish to emulate, fulfilling your destiny...you can't put a price on that. Young adults this age have a lot of creative and sexual energy to burn. It needs to be constructively channeled.
ApatheticNoMore
12-18-12, 1:29pm
I left home as soon as I could too. If I had all the wisdom in the universe I might have stayed a few years longer, and put up with it, as my parents were willing to pay for as much education as I wanted basically while living at home with nothing more than a part time job I choose to take on (I was proud of that as well!), and I even happened to be really GOOD AT schooling, it comes naturally enough. If I had all the wisdom in the world I would have taken them up on it, had them pay for a graduate degree (Masters - anything beyond that really is silly for most things), gotten a true profession, and set myself up to call the shots economically for life. But I was young and chafing under not being on my own yet and eager to leave at any price and who the heck even cares if it leads to long term happiness! I'll worry about that later! Plus I had very little experience in the world and just wanted to get out there.
I think too much electronics is bad for people's mood (hmm too bad I have to do at least 40 hours of it a week just to earn a living right?). Yea not any good for me either. Still the worst thing for people's mood is watching the news, to know what is going on in the world is to hurt from wound that will never heal, still it's also the only way to even attempt to be part of it.
I use the word clip because that is what we used to call them in the old days and have not changed my terminology. I served in the army from 1965 to 1968. The army was just changing from the M14 to the M16. I qualified with both. I only qualified as a sharp shooter. Later when I was assigned to 24th infantry division I was assigned to a machine gun crew and qualified with an M60 machine gun. My MOS was aircraft electrician but when you are assigned to an infantry division you are an infantry men first and a aircraft electrician second.
At that time no body took the time to call a clip a magazine. It took too long to say if you needed one in a hurry. But that was real life in the army at that time. My brother was in the army at the same time in Vietnam and I was in Germany. In Vietnam they sure did't take the time to call a clip a magazine in the heat of a fire fight but that is real life in war.
He was a door gunner on a Huey.
I served for 10 years, also using M-16's, M60's and .50's as welll as a .12 gauge riot shotgun and Colt .45 (then a Baretta .9mm) and also carried a firearm on my civilian job for years as well as personally for 30 plus years (even have a Bach. degree in Criminal Justice) and still call magazines clips. I really do know that's incorrect but...potato- potahto. I think it's just such common usage for many people - even professionals and military - that it's a hard habit to break. Bae has corrected me a couple of times and now everytime I start to write the word clip instead of magazine here, I have a vision of him in a nun's habit, a stern commanding expression on his face and a very large ruler in his hand about to rap me across the knuckles with it if I use clip instead of magazine :-)! But then I still call a firearm a gun (this is my rifle, this is my gun :-)!!).
(this is my rifle, this is my gun :-)!!).
Thanks for the trip in the way back machine. "this is for killing and this is for fun!"
Thanks for the trip in the way back machine. "this is for killing and this is for fun!"
We use to say "this is for fighting, this is for fun". Although as a female I had a few...er..missing gun bits :-)!
hey-- you are right, it is Over her name not Under.
Redfox is carrying on the long standing tradition of over-moderation on this board but for a brief 2 year respite. I realize that "over moderation" is in the eye of the reader but for the record, I protest.
Good feedback. I wasn't commenting as a Mod, however, rather as a peer. If/when I do engage my Mod role, I'll preface my comments, much like Gregg does, by saying so. And, IL, I agree that if I had been Modding, this would have been over the top! So, alas, no tradition being upheld here, simply an opinion by another community member. Onward!
I don't think anyone could have stopped this crazy from doing what he did. Yes, the semi-automatic guns made it possible for him to kill a large number in a relatively short time, but disturbed people will find a way.
I agree. However a person with a .12 gauge pump action shotgun that can carry 9 rounds (like mine) can do a huge amount of damage at close range - killing or greating harming several people with one shot. And that can be fired just as fast as you can pump it (a second or less between rounds). And a standard 6 shot revolver can be reloaded within less than a second with a speed loader - and someone could carry a large number of those on a belt. Same with a magazine for a pistol or hunting rifle. Even a standard bolt action rifle can be "cocked" and fired just as fast as you can do the bolt thingie. So even banning the use all semi-automatic firearms won't stop gun violence - at least not of this type. As someone has said, there are over 300 million legally registered firearms in this country - not counting those that are illegal and unregistered. That means that of those 300 million plus firearms out there, only a tiny fraction of those are used in a crime - and even less in a case like this of a mass shooter. To me that makes gun owners overall a safe and sane bunch. In comparision there are approx. 250million registered vehicles in the USA and close to 40,000 vehicular deaths/year - each and every year. I don't see anyone wanting to ban autos because using them may cause accidents or deaths for many people.
And for those who say there are no restrictions on firearms in this country - check out the different states policies. I'm in Calif, which has the toughest gun laws in the nation. Buying a gun is difficult here, and carrying a loaded, concealed gun legally is next to impossible because it's impossible to get permits (issued by the county sheriff around these here parts) - yet we have one of the highest gun-crime and death/injury in the nation. Many done with non-semi automatic firearms.
Something else that I am not getting - why is the Constitution so sacred and holy? Why is it so immune to change without a massive struggle?
To protect people's rights. To make sure that the majority doesn't trample on the minorities civil and human consitutional rights. To make it difficult so that any one group of people - say those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be made illegal and punishible as a crime - can't easily change the law in their favor even if they are in the majority. It's there to insure that you may one day (soon I hope) be able to marry your male partner even if other's are against it.
Thinking about it, it does seem odd that most of these shooters are actually not the disadvantaged, who really in many ways are treated the worst by society, but seem more often to be people with quite a lot of economic advantages. I know having money isn't everything, their home life could be horrible abusive etc., but is it an upper middle class phenomena?
Maybe they and their more well-to-do families place higher expections on them then do lower income or working class people. Children of upper middle class families seem to have a larger burden to suceed placed upon them - to excel in school, in sports, in social areas, etc... and when the kids - who may have certain feelings of entitlement many upper-middle income kids seem to have these days - don't or can't meet those expectations and fail, they can't hack it mentally. How many of them haven't been able to do well inschool and have dropped out or flunked out even if brilliant? How many have not been able to function socially or competetively in the high pressure social world of their teen age peers? How many of them had lots of strong parental disaproval at their life choices ("but you can be a doctor or lawyer or politician, why do you want to be a plumber or electrician?" You'll ruin your life")? Those things, coupled with general teenage rebellion against their parents, peers and society in general, as well as mental illnesses and the negative stigma attached to them - especially by wealthier parents who expect their kids to be perfect and act in certain appropriate ways in society - can leave them feeling angry and displaced in the upper middle class world they are supoose to belong to.
hey-- you are right, it is Over her name not Under.
Redfox is carrying on the long standing tradition of over-moderation on this board but for a brief 2 year respite. I realize that "over moderation" is in the eye of the reader but for the record, I protest.
Going by the book this conversation is probably better suited to the rough and tumble confines of PP. As a participant I'm glad it's here because there are a lot of very sane and logical members who will jump in here, but not go near a PP discussion (further evidence of their stability). Their input is valuable in part because the PP gang already knows what the others think. I tend to want to run as far and as fast from moderation as possible, but there are times when a gentle reminder that we're all in this together, regardless of the source, can be a good thing.
This may be important to you but I wonder if it's really that important to the grieving parents of dead children? The UK, and many other countries, has managed without a written constitution for a 1000 years.
Yet the UK has had at least 3 fairly recent instances of a lone gun man killing children in schools - elementary school age children. Does the UK ban hunting rifles and shotguns? I don't believe so. They can kill - and do - so unless you truely completely ban anything that fires a projectile, you will always have this problem - in the UK as well as other countries. The ansewer is to not opnly make gun laws stricter (I'm all for that) but mainly to address the "why" and "what". Why do some individuals feel the need to do this kind of violence against helpless children? What can we do to make sure those people are given treatment to prevent this? And again, most states don't allow the average citizen to carry a firearm - even to buy a firearm - unrestricted. There are already regulations against most firearms purchases, transport, and use. I agree they can be stricter and I'd like to see nationwide laws rather then state by state.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-18-12, 4:10pm
Yet the UK has had at least 3 fairly recent instances of a lone gun man killing children in schools - elementary school age children. Does the UK ban hunting rifles and shotguns? I don't believe so. They can kill - and do - so unless you truely completely ban anything that fires a projectile, you will always have this problem - in the UK as well as other countries. The ansewer is to not opnly make gun laws stricter (I'm all for that) but mainly to address the "why" and "what". Why do some individuals feel the need to do this kind of violence against helpless children? What can we do to make sure those people are given treatment to prevent this? And again, most states don't allow the average citizen to carry a firearm - even to buy a firearm - unrestricted. There are already regulations against most firearms purchases, transport, and use. I agree they can be stricter and I'd like to see nationwide laws rather then state by state.
THREE shootings? I can name one, Dunblane. What are the others? After Dunblane in 1996 hand guns were banned in the UK.
Miss Cellane
12-18-12, 4:16pm
Veering off the gun control topic, has anyone else noticed that the shooter's mother is frequently not included in the victim count? I can't tell if it is because she wasn't killed at the school, or if it is seen as insensitive to include her with the names of the other people who were killed, but it's beginning to be really noticeable.
Obama's speech at the memorial--he referred to twenty children and six adults. Mentioned all the names but hers--is that because it was specifically a memorial for those shot at the school?
Connecticut's governor is planning a moment of silence this coming Friday, when church bells will ring 26 times, not 27. There are many other examples. It's become much more noticeable in the last day or so.
Is this just because people are focused on the children and their teachers, or because people are silently blaming her for her son's actions?
She was, after all, a victim. She has a son and siblings and a mother who can be assumed to be grieving.
Is this just because people are focused on the children and their teachers, or because people are silently blaming her for her son's actions?
Probably a mix of both, with a little "she doesn't fit the constructed narrative" spicing thrown in.
Also not mentioned were the ongoing victims of this sort of killing, which claim ~4000 young folks each year, and so probably 10-20 people on the same day as the Connecticut shootings:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294962/murders-don-t-count-rich-lowry
catherine
12-18-12, 4:43pm
Probably a mix of both, with a little "she doesn't fit the constructed narrative" spicing thrown in.
Also not mentioned were the ongoing victims of this sort of killing, which claim ~4000 young folks each year, and so probably 10-20 people on the same day as the Connecticut shootings:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294962/murders-don-t-count-rich-lowry
Yes, my minister was preaching on the shootings this past Sunday and he prayed that we view this particular event as a window to the world where children are dying unjustly every day--from violence or disease or starvation. I appreciated that prayer. Just because every suffering family isn't under the CNN microscope doesn't mean it's not happening.
awakenedsoul
12-18-12, 5:05pm
I really appreciated your comment, redfox. I think this discussion was getting abusive and toxic. I'm out of it for that reason.
Originally posted by Eggs and Shrubs.
After Dunblane in 1996 hand guns were banned in the UK.Exactly what should happen in the US.
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-12, 7:33pm
Exactly what should happen in the US.Hi Mrs M! On the one hand I can't see that happening because of the damnable second amendment to the US Constitution - which is why I posted some posts back about why is the Constitution so sacred and holy and almost immune to change? I referenced Iceland as a country that has scrapped theirs and started with a new one and seems to be doing fairly well with it so far.....BUT TO BE POSITIVE: Today on the cover of US Today there was an article to the effect that a tipping point may have been reached about gun laws and gun control in the US....I can only hope.
I am very anti gun and I will state here and now why - before my mother fled my father in 1977, he pulled a gun on her in a drunken rage. I saw the whole thing. Luckily he did not pull the trigger, had he I might very well be in prison now for all I know - from the effects of growing up around such a person. There is not a day that passes that I don't remember this - even though the trigger didn't get pulled. Walk a mile in these shoes as a ten year old seeing your drunken father pull a gun on your mother and not know what was going to happen next, and then you may see guns and gun control and gun laws very differently. Just sayin'. As far as I am concerned, this one for me goes beyond taking a liberal or conservative stance, I see this as a HUMAN stance on my part. And I'm sorry I didn't post this sooner, my bad. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-12, 8:05pm
Look around the world and learn. In the UK and Australia similar incidents resulted in guns being banned. For the life of me I can't understand why, in the US, carrying a gun is a right but Universal Healthcare is a privilege.
As long as damaged people have relatively easy access to weapons then can anyone honestly say other school shootings won't occur? Sooner rather than later.I couldn't agree with you more, especially as to the carrying the gun being a right and universal healthcare being a privilege. To me this does not say very good things about the US and I live here. I only can wonder what is says about America and Americans to people elsewhere. Embarrassing to me as here is yet another instance where I am totally off the page of many.....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-18-12, 8:21pm
To protect people's rights. To make sure that the majority doesn't trample on the minorities civil and human consitutional rights. To make it difficult so that any one group of people - say those who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be made illegal and punishible as a crime - can't easily change the law in their favor even if they are in the majority. It's there to insure that you may one day (soon I hope) be able to marry your male partner even if other's are against it.Beautiful words. Thank you, Spartana. Rob
Bae, promise me that if you run into your island neighbor, you vid any impromptu convo you have with him...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/2nd-amendment-repeal-norm-stamper_n_2325745.html
Interview with Seattle's former Police Chief.
Editorial in The Guardian
"Newtown shooting: when it comes to guns and violence, America is like a failed state":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/16/newtown-shooting-america-gun-laws-failed-again
Editorial from the New Yorker
"Battleground America
One nation, under the gun"BY JILL LEPORE
APRIL 23, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore
Freein05 ... Thanks for all your service in keeping us all safe in this country. I'm a psych nurse, have worked in corrections, and now in a locked court ordered unit. I have learned to absolutely love and value all the security people who protect me every day.
Freein05 ... Thanks for all your service in keeping us all safe in this country. I'm a psych nurse, have worked in corrections, and now in a locked court ordered unit. I have learned to absolutely love and value all the security people who protect me every day.
I am curious Tammy (and seriously, I am not being snarky!)... Are the security personnel who protect you armed? If they are, does that make you feel safer? Do you thing that actually DOES make you safer? Thanks in advance for sharing a bit of first hand insight most of us will never have!
I really appreciated your comment, redfox. I think this discussion was getting abusive and toxic. I'm out of it for that reason.
I hope you'll reconsider. With a majority of folks in this country focusing on the symptom it's important that those looking for the root cause remain engaged.
I hope you'll reconsider. With a majority of folks in this country focusing on the symptom it's important that those looking for the root cause remain engaged.
Agreed! Your opinion counts, awakenedsoul.
Bae, promise me that if you run into your island neighbor, you vid any impromptu convo you have with him...
You missed the one I had a few years ago when he told people at our domestic violence/sexual assault services organization (which he was the board President of) that victims basically shouldn't resist assault, they might get hurt. He didn't *quite* tell them to lie back and enjoy it, but the message was clear.
I have no use for people of his sort.
The ones in corrections carried nonlethal stuff, with the option for a team to come in at any time with lots of weapons. The reason was that it was an open gymnasium set up, with the guards on the units. so they didn't carry lethal weapons in order to avoid inmates getting ahold of them.
The hospital setting is different. Security carries both lethal and nonlethal, but they are not within our units. They are in the lobby. When they come to the units they lock up their lethal weapons first.
I've had my life threatened too many times to count. Collegues have had people with weapons show up at work looking for them. I definately feel safer with armed security ready at any time. A big component of that safety is the shared understanding of mental illness ... Security goes to some of our trainings and defer to us as mental health concerns are primary. But they agree with us that security and safety is the foundation for everyone's goals. For example, I don't let bully-patients control my unit. I spent half of Monday getting a multidisciplinary plan in place to control an antisocial and paranoid bully who wanted to terrorize his peers. Nobody gets treatment when one bully rules the staff.
You missed the one I had a few years ago when he told people at our domestic violence/sexual assault services organization (which he was the board President of) that victims basically shouldn't resist assault, they might get hurt. He didn't *quite* tell them to lie back and enjoy it, but the message was clear.
I have no use for people of his sort.
Yikes! I was one of the three who started that org in the very early 80's. I'd have burst a vital organ hearing someone say that. I rather assumed you'd have quite different perspective, hence my desire to see a vid of the random encounter.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-19-12, 2:15am
[QUOTE=gimmethesimplelife;119110]I couldn't agree with you more, especially as to the carrying the gun being a right and universal healthcare being a privilege. To me this does not say very good things about the US and I live here. I only can wonder what is says about America and Americans to people elsewhere. Embarrassing to me as here is yet another instance where I am totally off the page of many.....Rob[/QUOTE
Americans are decent people. Billions of us worldwide are Americophiles and the actions of one very disturbed young man won't change us one little bit.
Wildflower
12-19-12, 3:05am
I personally would like to see assault guns banned, and an armed security guard at the front and back of every school in this nation. And at shopping centers, theaters, churches, etc. It is necessary at this point, sad to say, since there will always be those that walk among us that will harm us all without a second thought...
My grandkids are the age of the kids that were shot. My DD is a teacher. I am overwrought with emotion for the losses of these young lives, and the fact that it can and will happen again unless steps are taken to prevent it...
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-12, 3:46am
and an armed security guard at the front and back of every school in this nation. And at shopping centers, theaters, churches, etc. It is necessary at this point, sad to say, since there will always be those that walk among us that will harm us all without a second thought...
I don't, sounds like a complete and utter nightmare. Maybe add some drones overhead, could be spy drones or could be armed. As if all this police security doesn't have consequences of it's own, it has monetary costs (either paid by the government or private businesses which probably pass it on to the consumer) but also people are routinely killed by security personel as well.
Wildflower
12-19-12, 4:02am
I don't, sounds like a complete and utter nightmare. Maybe add some drones overhead, could be spy drones or could be armed. As if all this police security doesn't have consequences of it's own, it has monetary costs (either paid by the government or private businesses which probably pass it on to the consumer) but also people are routinely killed by security personel as well.
We've had shootings at both a shopping center and a movie theatre near us. The security personel saved lives, many lives according to the police.
So, ANM, you have a better idea? People dying, especially young kids, is a complete and utter nightmare to me.... I think security is WORTH paying for. Money is wasted on so many lesser things, but the safety of human lives is pretty damn important in my opinion.
Gimmethesimplelife. I'm saddened to hear of your ill-related experience relative to guns, Rob.
Adding, how refreshing it would be to see a revival of the sport of guns, as a gentleman's pastime, rather than about killing. As a Canadian, the only aspect of the gun-culture in the US, I see, is that the "sport of" and "gentleman" aspect of, has long been lost. It's not at all about "sport" anymore...
Additionally, to all those in favour of seeing MORE GUNS ISSUED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, I just finished reading an article from the Huffington Post, that stated, "the average American is 40 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than the average Englishman or Canadian. IMV (in my view), this speaks VOLUMES, as to how out of hand guns are in the US.
Now, as a fictitious number, let's just say that 50% of the total population in the US owns a gun, but because supporters of guns seem to be under the belief that issuing MORE GUNS will make America safer, I myself would really hate to reside in America, particularly if 100% of the population were to own a gun, because that would suggest that as an average American, you'd now be 80 times more likely to be killed by gunfire, than the average Englishman or Canadian.
Not much for bragging rights there.
What's really unfortunate now, in the wake of possibly banning certain guns, is that people are going out in huge numbers to buy them up. I wish it was retroactive and they would have to turn in their assault gun purchases.
As when anything horrible like this happens, I'm seeing two very different types of people out there. To me, the lines separating the mindsets/belief systems are very obvious and remarkable.
Mrs. M.........I would really like to know how many people actually own guns in the U.S. I have the feeling the non-gun owners far outnumber the gun owners. But it seems like the gun owners are much louder and more aggressive than the non owners, and we hear more from them. :(
Not all that unfortunate, CathyA. Here in Canada, under our restricted firearm program, special licenses are needed to possess such weapons, and aside from collectors, etc, the general public are not allowed to own or posses such weapons. The way it should be.
Furthermore, those in violation of possessing such restricted weapons and not conforming to the required laws, are prosecuted to the fullest.
One news broadcast I recently listened to stated, "Obama, just needs to take hold of the reins and exercise his authority". Adding, "Obama, doesn't need the support or approval of congress to move forward with a bill".
We're waiting Mr. President.
CathyA. One thing I've been thoroughly enjoying in recent days, is the public outcry (in the US) for gun-control measures, which clearly tells me, the general public has had enough. Most refreshing to see (and know).
I agree Mrs. M.........its about time people got more outraged by these sorts of things. Sometimes people seem so apathetic..........but this time, they're coming alive, and its good to see.
I have the feeling that we'll see Obama less afraid to express his personal wishes now. I sure hope so! We in the U.S. have been going down an ugly road for awhile and I hope this horrible tragedy might help us turn around.
I'm hoping with you, CathyA, and I can tell you that fellow Canadians, are hoping, too!
Quite frankly, the world has had enough.
iris lily
12-19-12, 9:07am
We've had shootings at both a shopping center and a movie theatre near us. The security personel saved lives, many lives according to the police.
So, ANM, you have a better idea? People dying, especially young kids, is a complete and utter nightmare to me.... I think security is WORTH paying for. Money is wasted on so many lesser things, but the safety of human lives is pretty damn important in my opinion.
I don't know. How much will that add to my movie theater ticket? Since it's MY money I think I would like input into that decision. It's easy enough to spend other people's money and declare that money is waster on lesser things.
I just went to a film yesterday and it never occurred to me to be afraid of a shooter.
In all the shootings that have happened, IL, no one expected to be gunned down. No one was afraid, right before it happened.
iris lily
12-19-12, 9:17am
In all the shootings that have happened, IL, no one expected to be gunned down. No one was afraid, right before it happened.
Do you think it's better that I am frightened when going about my business?
I live in a zip code that is in the top 5% worldwide (excluding war zones) for murders. I live my life, am aware of my surrounds, take simple precautions but I am more likely to be injured by a ghetto creep than a psychotic shooter. And the ghetto creep will most assuredly have an illegally obtained gun but ya'll carry on with that control stuff thinking that it will work. Mrs. M my ghetto neighbors are not allowed to do quite a lot of things that they are always doing. Why do you think that is?
Originally posted by Artist.
Guns are not the problem. Mental illness is.Neh... denial, is the problem, and just because a person is sane today, doesn't mean they will remain that way tomorrow. There are no sureties or guarantees Re:
Playing the mentally ill card, is a dangerous thing, because we're all subject to and prey to mental illness/instability (at any time).
Originally posted by Iris Lily.
Mrs. M my ghetto neighbors are not allowed to do quite a lot of things that they are always doing. Why do you think that is?Lax laws in your country? Luck of the dice? Sooner or later their luck will run out. "Live by the sword gun, die by the sword gun".
What's really unfortunate now, in the wake of possibly banning certain guns, is that people are going out in huge numbers to buy them up. I wish it was retroactive and they would have to turn in their assault gun purchases.
I personally would like to see assault guns banned, and an armed security guard at the front and back of every school in this nation. And at shopping centers, theaters, churches, etc. It is necessary at this point, sad to say, since there will always be those that walk among us that will harm us all without a second thought...
One news broadcast I recently listened to stated, "Obama, just needs to take hold of the reins and exercise his authority". Adding, "Obama, doesn't need the support or approval of congress to move forward with a bill".
If we do not proceed with caution I believe the picture of society painted here may very well become the new reality. I will not bother to argue whether or not anyone would be more or less likely to get shot, only that the price of such safety (real or imagined) might be higher than most people intended. I had the opportunity to visit a place where gun ownership was banned, enforcement of law was in the extreme and armed guards were everywhere (East Berlin, c. 1980). It was not the kind of place I would choose to be if given a choice. I'm not sure how many others here have had a chance to see that kind of society first hand, but getting that chance made a lifelong impression on me.
Furthermore, those in violation of possessing such restricted weapons and not conforming to the required laws, are prosecuted to the fullest.
Every jurisdiction in the US has similar laws. The problem here, as in Canada and elsewhere, is not the legal gun owner. The Sandy Hook shooting was carried out with guns that were painstakingly acquired through legal channels in what I understand is one of the strictest jurisdictions in the country. It is natural to be drawn in by the fantastic and jump to the conclusion that a ban would have prevented a tragedy. In any individual case it might have, but in the real issue with guns and gun violence, the big picture of who it is that is most often shooting at who, it is not the people legally purchasing guns that are causing problems. The guns in Newtown were stolen from and used against the legal owner. The real gun control question begins with how many of those illegally possessing guns are ever apprehended so they can be prosecuted. No one knows for sure. I'll wager the percentage in Canada, the US and anywhere else is very low. It just seems more logical to start enforcing the laws we already have on the books to see if they work or not before we start adding more layers of legislation.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 9:32am
Gimmethesimplelife. I'm saddened to hear of your ill-related experience relative to guns, Rob.Thank you, Mrs. M. I appreciate that. Yep, this has pretty much set my thoughts about guns in stone, having experienced that. I just think it's far too easy for guns to get into less than stable hands. Rob
Neh... denial, is the problem
Obviously.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 9:42am
Do you think it's better that I am frightened when going about my business?
I live in a zip code that is in the top 5% worldwide (excluding war zones) for murders. I live my life, am aware of my surrounds, take simple precautions but I am more likely to be injured by a ghetto creep than a psychotic shooter. And the ghetto creep will most assuredly have an illegally obtained gun but ya'll carry on with that control stuff thinking that it will work. Mrs. M my ghetto neighbors are not allowed to do quite a lot of things that they are always doing. Why do you think that is?I'm already wary while going about my business - that line has been crossed for me some time ago to be honest. Frightened no - this is too strong a word, but definitely wary. Rob
Originally posted by Gregg.
Every jurisdiction in the US has similar laws. The problem here, as in Canada and elsewhere, is not the legal gun owner. The Sandy Hook shooting was carried out with guns that were painstakingly acquired through legal channels in what I understand is one of the strictest jurisdictions in the country. It is natural to be drawn in by the fantastic and jump to the conclusion that a ban would have prevented a tragedy.When I read the likes of, "the average American is 40 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than the average Englishman or Canadian" (Huffington Post), that tells me the US (overall), in in dire need of gun-control. Strict gun-control. I'm not talking namby-pamby here.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 9:50am
I don't know. How much will that add to my movie theater ticket? Since it's MY money I think I would like input into that decision. It's easy enough to spend other people's money and declare that money is waster on lesser things.
I just went to a film yesterday and it never occurred to me to be afraid of a shooter.I recently had a conversation with a good friend of mine, who is stable and middle class and works for her parents at their financial services firm. Quite stable person, actually. Right after the shootings in Colorado I was saying to her that I would feel funky now going to the movies.....and she blew me away by saying that she always looks for an escape route while in a crowded public situation like that. To her it is automatic, and this was even before the shootings in Aurora. Wow. I'm thinking that for some a line has been crossed maybe to where they are not going to think in terms of what gets added to their movie ticket. I would agree this is sad, very sad, but with the ways things are going.....OTOH, you could talk of what gets added to our tickets for airport security and I would agree much of this is theatere. So what is the answer? Scary thing is I don't know that there is one other than to avoid crowded public situations when you can - obviously for most of us we can't 100% of the time, I get that. But maybe I will cut back on things like movies - which I don't go to very often anyway - until I see more stability out there. Rob
What I see is that this country should immediately implement required training in Critical Thinking and Statistics 101 before a citizen is granted a license to vote, or to exercise their First Amendment rights in public....
Gimmethesimplelife. I can only imagine that the level of retraction and weariness, as a result of this latest event, will alter and forever change the way many go about their daily affairs.
Gregg.......of course I don't want a police state with no one able to rebel. But isn't that sort of far off from reducing the types/amounts of guns out there?
I just can't believe that responsible gun owners aren't willing to compromise a little. What if we banned assault weapons and large clips and made everyone out there with them turn them in?
How can that possibly impinge on their rights.......unless they want to use it inappropriately. Give me a break. How many rights do we need to have........especially when this particular "right" has been taken to extremes that the writers of the constitution could never have imagined.
What I see is that this country should immediately implement required training in Critical Thinking and Statistics 101 before a citizen is granted a license to vote, or to exercise their First Amendment rights in public....
That would go hand-in-hand with many of the opinions expressed here and in the media.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 9:57am
What I see is that this country should immediately implement required training in Critical Thinking and Statistics 101 before a citizen is granted a license to vote, or to exercise their First Amendment rights in public....Statistically I realize my chances of getting gunned down are not very high, I get this. The problem is now this is going to be in the back of my mind - this possibility - and no logic is going to drive this away. We're talking about the possibility of random loss of human life here Bae and I don't see how logic is going to work on this one for many. Especially for women with children - that bond is so strong I don't see how any mother doesn't have this thought in the back of her mind now. Talk about a quality of life reduction!!!!! Maybe the good news here is that now there can be some change with gun laws, we'll see.....Rob
But why not try everything reasonable to reduce the probabilities?
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 10:08am
But why not try everything reasonable to reduce the probabilities?This might be a good start, yes.....Rob
But why not try everything reasonable to reduce the probabilities?
This might be a good start, yes.....Rob
So, since these mass shootings take place pretty much exclusively in venues where potential victims are not allowed the means to protect themselves, would it seem reasonable to de-criminalize effective self defense?
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 10:13am
That would go hand-in-hand with many of the opinions expressed here and in the media.Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.....I mean that sincerely. I am of the opinion that if one of your relations were gunned down in Connecticut (or elsewhere) you might have an entirely different take on this? Perhaps? My point is that due to the randomness of this, statistically probability is not going to cut it for many due to how the human mind works. Rob
This might be a good start, yes.....Rob
That's all you can do. The debate is primarily about what's "reasonable".
Miss Cellane
12-19-12, 10:29am
I think we need to be realistic here. Asking for a ban on all guns won't work. It's too extreme and will simply meet with too much resistance. And there are people who own guns who are responsible, trained users of said guns. There are Olympic sports that use guns. I know people who go out every year and kill their one deer and enjoy venison all winter long. Guns are not going to go away. Trying to change the Constitution would take years and years, and meanwhile nothing would change.
What we can do is limit the sale of certain types of weapons. We can create a licensing system for gun ownership, the way we have for driving a car, with periodic renewals. That alone can be seen as unconstitutional today, so it would take a lot of work to achieve. We can work on ways to get guns out of the hands of known criminals. We can figure out how to enforce the laws we already had. I'm sure there are many ideas out there that I haven't heard of yet. Let's call it "gun safety" instead of "gun control."
In addition, we will also need to look at how the mentally ill are diagnosed and treated, and improve our current situation significantly.
But the sad fact is that there will always be the risk of another Sandy Hook. You can't legislate sanity. You can't prevent the theft of weapons, or the illegal sale of weapons. And society as a whole has to make decisions. We can divert money to making schools safer--armed guards, locked gates, bulletproof doors. But at what point do the funds diverted to protect schools or churches or mall or movie theaters begin to deplete the funds for mental health care, for health care, for fire and police departments, for eduction itself?
There is no one right answer here. There is no one simple fix. The first step is admitting that we, as a country, have a problem. Just getting there won't be easy. Then there needs to be a multi-pronged approach to the problem, not just dealing with the gun issue, but with all the other issues that come into play. Our goal is to keep people safe. We need to focus on how to get there.
[For the record, I am not a big fan of guns. I'd be happy with a complete ban. But I'd rather work on a solution to this problem that includes responsible individual gun ownership along with other measures, than to drag the argument out for years hoping for a complete ban.]
http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/#comments
This was shared by a FB friend. Wow.
Rob ... I wonder if some of the difference is your friend's gender. (looking for an escape route). I've read that women usually have daily thoughts about their safety, while men do not. Daily, we consider whether our choices will be risky in relation to rape and assault.
gimmethesimplelife
12-19-12, 11:26am
Rob ... I wonder if some of the difference is your friend's gender. (looking for an escape route). I've read that women usually have daily thoughts about their safety, while men do not. Daily, we consider whether our choices will be risky in relation to rape and assault.Tammy, interesting point. I had not thought of this, but.....I can see where women might be thinking differently because of this. Maybe some of it is hardwired and genetic (?), especially if they have kids. That's what I love about this board - I often get a different take to ponder and sometimes leave learning something. Thank you! Rob
Alan.........I can't remember for sure, but anyone in that movie theater in Aurora, CO could have had a gun, right? (if they had a carry permit). Did it stop the gunman? I believe the police did.
SteveinMN
12-19-12, 11:35am
she blew me away by saying that she always looks for an escape route while in a crowded public situation like that. To her it is automatic, and this was even before the shootings in Aurora. Wow. I'm thinking that for some a line has been crossed maybe to where they are not going to think in terms of what gets added to their movie ticket.
I think that's a little extreme. Whenever I am in a public place -- airplane, shopping mall, movie theater, public square -- I look for emergency exits. Any number of things could happen beside a shooting -- a fire, an explosion, whatever. Locating an exit or two takes 15 seconds and it's done. If something major and unexpected happens, I know at least a couple of options. I consider that simply thinking ahead, not paranoia.
I probably could calculate it, but the odds of being on the receiving and injurious end of some disaster like that has got to be right up there with winning the Powerball. If I'm going to let those odds dictate my life, I will have diminished my life terribly. All of life is a risk. Getting in a car is a risk. Walking down basement stairs is a risk. Not that one should exacerbate the risk by driving drunk or wearing slippers on the stairs. But if we forgo all the good based on the very low chance that something could happen, then the crazy people have won.
Rob ... I wonder if some of the difference is your friend's gender. (looking for an escape route). I've read that women usually have daily thoughts about their safety, while men do not. Daily, we consider whether our choices will be risky in relation to rape and assault.
Exactly my thoughts. However, since the data is that we are the most likely to be assaulted in our home by a loved one, logic again fails to take dominance over fear. (Personally, I am usually on the lookout for a bathroom!)
Mrs. M.........I would really like to know how many people actually own guns in the U.S. I have the feeling the non-gun owners far outnumber the gun owners. But it seems like the gun owners are much louder and more aggressive than the non owners, and we hear more from them. :(
Maybe that's because they are armed to the teeth!
There is a reason the tea baggers wanted to wear side arms to political rallies. :0!
SteveinMN
12-19-12, 11:45am
would it seem reasonable to de-criminalize effective self defense?
The question there, I think, as has been expressed in other posts, is the mental quality of the person behind the weapon. Peace officers and soldiers are trained in how to respond effectively and calmly while bullets are whizzing around them -- and even they don't always get it right. I think if we went that route we as a society would have to be prepared for "friendly fire" injuries and deaths from armed well-meaning Good Samaritans who just didn't make good decisions in time. If that's okay, then decriminalize away. Based on what I'm reading in several posts here and on twitter, Facebook, etc., though, that does not seem okay to many people. There seems to be zero tolerance for mistakes.
Alan.........I can't remember for sure, but anyone in that movie theater in Aurora, CO could have had a gun, right? (if they had a carry permit).
No, I believe it was posted No Weapons Allowed.
And I don't really have a problem with that. In states that allow concealed carry, businesses are allowed to prohibit their customers from bringing weapons on site. If a business chooses to do so, the same state laws prohibiting weapons in schools, churches, government buildings, etc., then apply.
To me, this is proper. Business owners should be able to control their premises. People then have a choice as to whether they will patronize that business or not.
I believe schools should be held to a higher standard. We force our children to attend those schools and we don't allow the adults charged with their safety the same right of self defense we allow those same adults everywhere else.
Did it stop the gunman? I believe the police did.
Actually, James Holmes stopped himself. The police simply picked him up in the parking lot.
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-12, 12:19pm
I probably could calculate it, but the odds of being on the receiving and injurious end of some disaster like that has got to be right up there with winning the Powerball. If I'm going to let those odds dictate my life, I will have diminished my life terribly. All of life is a risk. Getting in a car is a risk. Walking down basement stairs is a risk. Not that one should exacerbate the risk by driving drunk or wearing slippers on the stairs. But if we forgo all the good based on the very low chance that something could happen, then the crazy people have won.
+1 To go out about your whole life worrying about that, and then hey you still die! Be prepared by scanning for emergency exists if you like, I don't think that's by itself is a problem. But to go about your whole life worrying about a shooting breaking out seems to me a phobia, it's like people who won't get on planes because a plane might crash, and the line always used is you are more likely to die in an auto accident (and you are), and the same for the movie, you are more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movie than in the theater (oh so better go out an buy a Hummer so you and your family are protected, long term risks to everyone of climate change pershaw). Of course I don't know your neighborhood and if it's particularly bad worrying about the movie theater in any given case may be a lot more reasonable, I just fear that now every upper middle class suburb is going to OD on paranoia. If that's how you feel TURN OF THE MEDIA, TURN OFF THE MEDIA!!! It distorts, it distorts everything, it will make you seem you are likely to die from a crazy shooter, but won't tell you how bad global warming is (might interfere with profits), it distorts absolutely everything it touches. We are ALL given to distortion/bias, based on what lenses we are seeing through at even given time, but the media is a mass distortion and hysteria generating *machine*.
Exactly my thoughts. However, since the data is that we are the most likely to be assaulted in our home by a loved one, logic again fails to take dominance over fear. (Personally, I am usually on the lookout for a bathroom!)
I'm tired of hearing how I automatically approach life because I'm a woman. How I must approach life or vote because I'm a woman or something. Because I almost never do. I almost never approach life that way. I don't approach my whole life thinking I am constantly in danger. Now there is a feminist strain that goes that females are always in some form fearful around men, because we know, that physically (not augumented with weapons but just their much stronger physiques), they often can do what they want with us. I'd relate to that. But then my family was somewhat violent as well and the males, not like Robs though, and I BELIEVE danger if anywhere is within families and so on, not random shooters at the movie. But that does happen to be pretty much the case.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-19-12, 12:30pm
When I read the likes of, "the average American is 40 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than the average Englishman or Canadian" (Huffington Post), that tells me the US (overall), in in dire need of gun-control. Strict gun-control. I'm not talking namby-pamby here.
A link to show the international comparisons of gun ownership and gun crime.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data
catherine
12-19-12, 12:31pm
What I see is that this country should immediately implement required training in Critical Thinking and Statistics 101 before a citizen is granted a license to vote, or to exercise their First Amendment rights in public....
Yes, the fear-mongering is ridiculous and so anxiety-producing beyond reason. I read in Freakonimics how parents will refuse to let their children visit a friend at a home in which the parents own guns (I paid attention to this, because my DH was adamant about that with my kids and I didn't always agree).. YET, there are FAR more deaths of children that occur in the swimming pools of those parents who are so fearful of guns.
I personally am not a gun proponent. But what I'm saying is that people should look at the statistics with regard to actual risk.
I'm so tired of one-off incidences just causing melt-downs. I'm not saying that these incidences aren't horrific--they certainly are. And I'm not saying that nothing should be done to protect our children--obviously. But I think we need to balance our response to these events with reason.
Spartana
12-19-12, 12:36pm
THREE shootings? I can name one, Dunblane. What are the others? After Dunblane in 1996 hand guns were banned in the UK.
BBC News - Mass shootings and gun control
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10216955
Eggs and Shrubs
12-19-12, 12:41pm
BBC News - Mass shootings and gun control
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10216955
Er. That's two over the last 25 years. And Dunblane was 16 years ago. Incidentally, on a lighter note did you know one of the survivors of Dunblane was Andy Murray?
Maybe that's because they are armed to the teeth!
There is a reason the tea baggers wanted to wear side arms to political rallies. :0!
The stats I'd like to see is how many own guns vs. how many train, regularly practice, etc. Or bother with other means of "protecting themselves" . Yea, I know - bea does - but sadly people who sound like characters out of a Heinlein novel I expect are statistically insignificant:). But there's a big difference between buying a guitar and being someone who can play it. And I don't think that's stressed enough.
Read an article that gun sales in Virginia and Colorado are booming - I hope people signing up for classes in usage and safety will as well.
Er. That's two over the last 25 years.
Cumbria, Dunblane & Hungerford, with Cumbria well after the countrywide ban on handguns.
Eggs and Shrubs
12-19-12, 12:58pm
Fair point about Cumbria. I'm not saying gun crime is non existent but look at my link.
. Whenever I am in a public place -- airplane, shopping mall, movie theater, public square -- I look for emergency exits. Any number of things could happen beside a shooting -- a fire, an explosion, whatever. Locating an exit or two takes 15 seconds and it's done. If something major and unexpected happens, I know at least a couple of options. I consider that simply thinking ahead, not paranoia.
.
I do the same thing - mostly because I live in earthquake country and knowing where the nearest exit is can save your life. But also, as Tammy pointed out, I am much more aware of my potential risk of being attacked or assualted as a female. I think this may be the case for many women - especially if they live alone or go out alone. Compared to men, who seem less fearful of being attacked, women often feel the need to be as aware of their surroundings or the potential risks involved in the place they are at. While it is highly unlikely that I will ever be assualted (was attacked once but able to get away), I am aware that I am seen as weaker and less able to defend myself then a man would be. Thus may more likely become a target for assault, robbery, or worse.
[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;119274 I'm tired of hearing how I automatically approach life because I'm a woman. How I must approach life or vote because I'm a woman or something. Because I almost never do. I almost never approach life that way. I don't approach my whole life thinking I am constantly in danger. Now there is a feminist strain that goes that females are always in some form fearful around men, because we know, that physically (not augumented with weapons but just their much stronger physiques), they often can do what they want with us. I'd relate to that. But then my family was somewhat violent as well and the males, not like Robs though, and I BELIEVE danger if anywhere is within families and so on, not random shooters at the movie. But that does happen to be pretty much the case.[/QUOTE]
Being aware of your surroundings isn't the same thing as being afraid. I think that if I am hiking on remote trail somewhere alone and come across a couple of men I am probably a bit more alert (although not fearful) then the average guy would be. I don't approach my life as if I am contantly in danger and don't view all men as inherently evil, but yeah, I am a tad more vigilant about my surroundings - especially since I DO go off to many remote places alone - then the average guy. I also never even think of random shootings or wildgun wielders in my day to day life. Just never enters my thoughts unless it's put there by threads like this. If I was constantly fearful of everything in life I'd be locked in my bathroom .... where I'd slip on the throw rug and die :-)!
ApatheticNoMore
12-19-12, 1:35pm
Yes, the fear-mongering is ridiculous and so anxiety-producing beyond reason.
If the excessive FEAR has gotten to the point of scaring people from going to public places, it is actively co-creating social problems. Increasing the isolation and lack of public spaces etc., it seems to me that's completely the opposite of what U.S. society needs. It is itself social pathology.
I personally am not a gun proponent. But what I'm saying is that people should look at the statistics with regard to actual risk.
I'm so tired of one-off incidences just causing melt-downs. I'm not saying that these incidences aren't horrific--they certainly are. And I'm not saying that nothing should be done to protect our children--obviously. But I think we need to balance our response to these events with reason.
+1000 And what one off incident will cause it itself also seems bizarre.
Er. That's two over the last 25 years. And Dunblane was 16 years ago. Incidentally, on a lighter note did you know one of the survivors of Dunblane was Andy Murray?
Cumbia I think was the third and most recent one but I will have to re-read the article to be sure. I saw Andy Murrray on TV the other night (BBC I think) talking about his experience in Dunblane and it's long term aftyer effect. Very sad to know the children who survived Sandy Hook will have to go thru the same thing. And for what it's worth (which doesn't seem to be much here) as a gun owner I myself am a strong proponent of tighter gun laws. In another thread I listed a whole series of things I thought should be done before a person - an adult - can purshase and own a firearm. However, my belief is that none of that will do any good in these particular cases. Even if a country banned all weapons - including those shotguns and rifles used for sport and hunting - so that all we had were clubs and baseball bats (cricket bats for you Brits :-)!) for self defense, I think this kind of thing would happen just as often as it already does.
I also have a habit of locating the exits and scoping out the lay of the land whenever I'm in a public place. That is primarily because I want to know how to have the highest odds of getting my wife/mother/children out of harms way if anything happens. To do that is, IMO, simply prudent behavior. Nothing will save you in every situation every time, but I firmly believe people who are proactive with simple observations and who are aware of their surroundings, including the other people there, are exponentially less likely to become victims. My children have been taught to use similar practices. I think they are quite well adjusted (no signs of paranoia), realistic and that awareness serves them well.
Playing the mentally ill card, is a dangerous thing, because we're all subject to and prey to mental illness/instability (at any time).
IF you feel this is true then why would you want to allow Canadians to continue to have rifles and shotguns for sport and hunting when they may be subject to mental illness at any time also? Rifles and shotguns can kill just as readily as any other firearm.
how refreshing it would be to see a revival of the sport of guns, as a gentleman's pastime, rather than about killing. As a Canadian, the only aspect of the gun-culture in the US, I see, is that the "sport of" and "gentleman" aspect of, has long been lost. It's not at all about "sport" anymore...
.
Many people in the states who have firearms are very involved in sport shooting, competition and/or hunting. It's probably the primary reason they have firearms in the first place. A smaller number may have them for home and personal protection. And an even smaller number are collectors. Sport shooting is very much alive and well in the USA and there are many many events nationwide. My sister participates in many of them (she also carries firearms for her job) and I use to be but now that I'm no longer working, ammo is just too expensive for recreational sport shooting for cheap skape me :-)! I do however, constantly train but not as much as I would like.
I also have a habit of locating the exits and scoping out the lay of the land whenever I'm in a public place. That is primarily because I want to know how to have the highest odds of getting my wife/mother/children out of harms way if anything happens. To do that is, IMO, simply prudent behavior. Nothing will save you in every situation every time, but I firmly believe people who are proactive with simple observations and who are aware of their surroundings, including the other people there, are exponentially less likely to become victims. My children have been taught to use similar practices. I think they are quite well adjusted (no signs of paranoia), realistic and that awareness serves them well.
Having had two major fires in my life. I concur. Fire or a natural disaster is a considerably more likely scenario than a shooter. Knowing the ways out or to safety are helpful.
Miss Cellane
12-19-12, 3:37pm
I also have a habit of locating the exits and scoping out the lay of the land whenever I'm in a public place. That is primarily because I want to know how to have the highest odds of getting my wife/mother/children out of harms way if anything happens. To do that is, IMO, simply prudent behavior. Nothing will save you in every situation every time, but I firmly believe people who are proactive with simple observations and who are aware of their surroundings, including the other people there, are exponentially less likely to become victims. My children have been taught to use similar practices. I think they are quite well adjusted (no signs of paranoia), realistic and that awareness serves them well.
This. It's not so much paranoia as being aware of your surroundings.
My dad was in the military. Four of my brothers are/were in the military. But even those of us who weren't can tell you where the exits are, always park our cars so we can just get in and go without having to back out or turn around. Little things like that. So much a part of everyday life that we don't even think about them, until someone else points them out.
I've been thinking about the media and how they seemingly try to get us to live in constant fear. One story after another. Crime, shooters, plane crashes, road rage, your diet... Everything we do is dangerous and potentially lethal. Our society is violent. We should all just stay inside all the time. I will say, however, the children of our Canadian neighbors face a life threatening situation that I don't believe our kids have EVER faced in the US (one minute video)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE0Q904gtMI
I may never go to the park again.
I think it was the hat........it had 2 big eyes on it. Pretty scary!
Analysis that might be of interest to some folks here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/opinion/bennett-gun-rights/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
And some stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf
This is the kind of person I worry about when I think about concealed carry laws:
http://news.yahoo.com/police-pa-man-throws-fit-over-cheese-burger-175543413.html
DOVER, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania man who spent some good cheddar on a burger faces charges after allegedly throwing a tantrum because his order included cheese.
Police in York County say 35-year-old Sean Varone knocked over a trash can, threw a high chair and assaulted an employee at a Springettsbury Township McDonald's last week.
The York Dispatch (http://bit.ly/VRrGC3 ) reports that Varone, of Dover Township, is also accused of grabbing an employee's cellphone as she tried to call 911 and chucking it across the parking lot before fleeing.
iris lily
12-19-12, 8:45pm
This is the kind of person I worry about when I think about concealed carry laws:
http://news.yahoo.com/police-pa-man-throws-fit-over-cheese-burger-175543413.html
This perp doesn't worry about the law, he was illegally carrying, has done it before and will undoubtedly do it again unless we lock him up for this and all of the other crimes he commits. Clearly, he doesn't care about permits.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/barber-shop-conversation-in-wentzville-about-connecticut-shootings-ends-with/article_fad31906-a801-5819-9566-4d3129bbc114.html
I've been thinking about the media and how they seemingly try to get us to live in constant fear. One story after another. Crime, shooters, plane crashes, road rage, your diet... Everything we do is dangerous and potentially lethal. Our society is violent. We should all just stay inside all the time. I will say, however, the children of our Canadian neighbors face a life threatening situation that I don't believe our kids have EVER faced in the US (one minute video)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE0Q904gtMI I will never go to the park again
Oh My GOD!! I couldn't belive that happened. I remember that in Alaska there were always tales of bald eagles flying off with tourists little dogs - and now I know that's probably true. If it wasn't on video I don't think anyone would believe it. That kid will get a laugh out of that when he's older.
I do agree with you that the media does stoke our fears quite a bit. Sometimes it's justifiable, most times it's not. But it does seem to cause a lot of knee-jerk reactions - sometimes needed, sometimes not. I for one don't really understand the ban on semi-automatic rifles or extended clips - RAP!! Oh my knuckles. Sorry Sister Bae (just joking:-)!) ...magazines as a response to the Sandy Hook shooting since he could have just as easily done it with one of the 2 handguns (both semi-autos) that his Mom had - that many people, including myself, have. Why aren't people calling on them to be banned - or other equally lethal firearms? I think that it is just the use of the word "assault" when added to rifle since really an AR-15 is nothing more than a .22 hunting rifle in militay garb (i.e. a Marlin .22 hunting rifle holds 15 rounds in it's magazine where as a Calif legal AR-15 only holds 10 rounds). A small pistol (like a Beretta .380 I have) can carry 9 rounds in a clip (RAP!)..er.. magazine and I can carry many magazines on me as I can manage (100 - 200 if taped together?) and pop one in in less than a half second and continue firering. So why is that different then an assault rifle with an extended magazine? Other then distance (a rifle will fire a much further distance) I don't see any difference. A handgun and even a sawed off or short barrelled shotgun with a folding stock or pistrol grip is much more concealable too. So while I don't support a ban, I HIGHLY support more regulations and conditions to gun ownership in order to keep even a single shot musket out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
This one took me by surprise - I didn't even know they existed. I've read sales of armored backpacks (the armor selling for up to $400) for students are way up.
iris lily
12-19-12, 8:57pm
Oh My GOD!! I couldn't belive that happened. I remember that in Alaska there were always tales of bald eagles flying off with tourists little dogs - and now I know that's probably true.
Are you kidding, that happened in our neighborhood 2 summers ago so I'm sure it happens all over. It wasn't even an eagle, it was a hawk. First the hawk picked off our friends' African Grey parrot. Swooped down and took her from her perch on their back deck. It was horrible, those birds are smart like 4 year old kids. It traumatized our friends. And then--I just learned this last Saturday, hadn't heard it before--the hawks that same summer got a chihuahua dog.
The little dog was out walking with its owner and the hawk swooped down and grabbed the dog but the woman owner hung onto the leash but finally had to let go. The hawk flew up in the air with the dog and then dropped the dog from 20 - 30 feet. Then the hawk swooped back down and grabbed the dog and flew off with it. It was horrible for that poor owner.
I learned about this when I was talking to one of our neighbors at a party last week. They always "walk" their chihuahua in the Park by holding her, that dog's feet never touch the ground. I never never knew why until hearing that story. I"m sure that the stray cat population is kept down by the hawks. We are thrilled this year at the lack of squirrels, The hawks again.
This is the kind of person I worry about when I think about concealed carry laws:
Nationwide, in states that issue concealed carry permits, civilian permit holders have almost exactly the same rate of improper gun use/misuse as law enforcement officers. Near-zero. And there are decades of data on this.
History and data simply don't support the hypothesis that civilians with permits cause our streets to run red with blood.
Are you kidding, that happened in our neighborhood 2 summers ago so I'm sure it happens all over. It wasn't even an eagle, it was a hawk. First the hawk picked off our friends' African Grey parrot. Swooped down and took her from her perch on their back deck. It was horrible, those birds are smart like 4 year old kids. It traumatized our friends. And then--I just learned this last Saturday, hadn't heard it before--the hawks that same summer got a chihuahua dog.
The little dog was out walking with its owner and the hawk swooped down and grabbed the dog but the woman owner hung onto the leash but finally had to let go. The hawk flew up in the air with the dog and then dropped the dog from 20 - 30 feet. Then the hawk swooped back down and grabbed the dog and flew off with it. It was horrible for that poor owner.
I learned about this when I was talking to one of our neighbors at a party last week. They always "walk" their chihuahua in the Park by holding her, that dog's feet never touch the ground. I never never knew why until hearing that story. I"m sure that the stray cat population is kept down by the hawks. We are thrilled this year at the lack of squirrels, The hawks again.
Oh No!! I guess I better keep a better eye out on my RatDog - the terrhuahua (half terrier, half chihuahua). When I was in the mountains there were a bunch of golden eagles and people would tell me to watch out for them with little dogs. Never believed it as I was more worried about the cougars, coyotes and bears...oh my!
Are you kidding, that happened in our neighborhood 2 summers ago so I'm sure it happens all over. It wasn't even an eagle, it was a hawk. First the hawk picked off our friends' African Grey parrot. Swooped down and took her from her perch on their back deck. It was horrible, those birds are smart like 4 year old kids. It traumatized our friends. And then--I just learned this last Saturday, hadn't heard it before--the hawks that same summer got a chihuahua dog.
The little dog was out walking with its owner and the hawk swooped down and grabbed the dog but the woman owner hung onto the leash but finally had to let go. The hawk flew up in the air with the dog and then dropped the dog from 20 - 30 feet. Then the hawk swooped back down and grabbed the dog and flew off with it. It was horrible for that poor owner.
I learned about this when I was talking to one of our neighbors at a party last week. They always "walk" their chihuahua in the Park by holding her, that dog's feet never touch the ground. I never never knew why until hearing that story. I"m sure that the stray cat population is kept down by the hawks. We are thrilled this year at the lack of squirrels, The hawks again.
Oh god.........that's the stuff that OCD thoughts are made of! Poor doogie! that must have been a tough thing for them to get over. :(
Now just wait a cotton pickin' minute!
The notes on the video say it's been debunked as a fake.
Really? A fully grown woman holding her leashed dog wasn't stronger than a 10 pound (max) hawk (or eagle or whatever it was?)
I don't buy it.
Now just wait a cotton pickin' minute!
The notes on the video say it's been debunked as a fake.
Really? A fully grown woman holding her leashed dog wasn't stronger than a 10 pound (max) hawk (or eagle or whatever it was?)
I don't buy it.
My cats' mother was taken by an eagle here, shortly after she had the litter. An eagle tried to go after one of my cats a few years later, it was only the quick action of my trusty Flying Basset Hound that saved it. I've also seen eagles here flying along with 15+ pound salmon in their talons. They are pretty chunky birds.
WSJ article on the data, of possible interest:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
Nationwide, in states that issue concealed carry permits, civilian permit holders have almost exactly the same rate of improper gun use/misuse as law enforcement officers. Near-zero. And there are decades of data on this.
History and data simply don't support the hypothesis that civilians with permits cause our streets to run red with blood.
I don't know who put that hypothesis forward - I'm just saying I wouldn't want to see people who act out violently carrying.
I don't know who put that hypothesis forward - I'm just saying I wouldn't want to see people who act out violently carrying.
The people who get concealed carry permits don't seem to act out violently, even in states where the requirements for issuance are minimal.
The people who get concealed carry permits don't seem to act out violently, even in states where the requirements for issuance are minimal.
Let's hope the current demographics for people who get concealed carry permits don't change, then.
Saw this tonight:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/principals-teachers-carry-guns-school-18020279
My cats' mother was taken by an eagle here, shortly after she had the litter. An eagle tried to go after one of my cats a few years later, it was only the quick action of my trusty Flying Basset Hound that saved it. I've also seen eagles here flying along with 15+ pound salmon in their talons. They are pretty chunky birds.
Wait, a flying Basset?!? Oh, what a hilarious image I have...
We had a lamb with talon tracks on its side; an eagle tried to take it but couldn't. I saw a pair of eagles chase a doe & fawn across our lower pasture & into the woods, and nearly had them. We actually had a Dept. of Wildlife permit to shoot a special type of blank ammunition to scare the eagles off during lambing... they sat in the fir trees just outside the farmhouse, skulking, though ravens did more actual damage to lambs, pecking their eyes out.
My ex saw an eagle try to take a salmon, in the water just out from the Anacortes ferry dock, and struggle to fly away with it. It's mate joined in, and the two together took off with the salmon. It is quite possible for a big bird of prey to snatch a child, but this vid claims it's a Golden, which it is definitely not. It appears to be not quite real to me, as I am rather suspicious that a bird of prey would hunt in such a populated area.
Wait, a flying Basset?!? Oh, what a hilarious image I have...
Ya, the Basset loved its cat. Cat had food on table on deck. Eagle had been hassling it. Eagle swooped again, Basset charged eagle, jumped on chair, lept.
I looked out my kitchen window just in time to see a Basset flying about chest high, eagle just evading its mighty moist flews, while the cat was jumping off the table just ahead of the eagle.
It was epic.
The Bassett's ears must have added in his flight. :)
iris lily
12-19-12, 11:50pm
Now just wait a cotton pickin' minute!
The notes on the video say it's been debunked as a fake.
Really? A fully grown woman holding her leashed dog wasn't stronger than a 10 pound (max) hawk (or eagle or whatever it was?)
I don't buy it.
It sounded legit to me. My neighborhood who talked to the woman said he is convinced that it really happened because she was still so upset more than a year later.
But I wasn't there so can't say for sure. And who knows, may the hawk surprised her and that's how the leash went lose from her hand.
Ya, the Basset loved its cat. Cat had food on table on deck. Eagle had been hassling it. Eagle swooped again, Basset charged eagle, jumped on chair, lept.
I looked out my kitchen window just in time to see a Basset flying about chest high, eagle just evading its mighty moist flews, while the cat was jumping off the table just ahead of the eagle.
It was epic.
Ya canna be makin' this up... Sounds fantastic! Did you expire laughing?
Wildflower
12-20-12, 2:54am
The little dog was out walking with its owner and the hawk swooped down and grabbed the dog but the woman owner hung onto the leash but finally had to let go. The hawk flew up in the air with the dog and then dropped the dog from 20 - 30 feet. Then the hawk swooped back down and grabbed the dog and flew off with it. It was horrible for that poor owner.
IL, not to say that this story isn't true, but I've heard basically the exact same story circulating on the internet on Pet Forums/Message Boards in the past year or so, except that it supposedly happened in the Ozarks area. Anyway, so now I'm paranoid and everytime we walk the dogs now I tell DH to hold tightly onto the leash of our chihuahua and he just laughs at me....
Of course, predatory birds will and do pick up small animals including cute little dogs and kitties, flying away with them, sadly. :(
Well, the group of guys who "doctored" the eagle and the baby were on a news show this morning. They are in a 3-D production class in a Montreal university. The challenge was if they could get more than 100 hits on the internet with their video, they would get an A. So the truth is out. On one hand, its cool, on the other hand, its scary that we can no longer believe what we see.
iris lily
12-20-12, 8:32am
IL, not to say that this story isn't true, but I've heard basically the exact same story circulating on the internet on Pet Forums/Message Boards in the past year or so, except that it supposedly happened in the Ozarks area. Anyway, so now I'm paranoid and everytime we walk the dogs now I tell DH to hold tightly onto the leash of our chihuahua and he just laughs at me....
Of course, predatory birds will and do pick up small animals including cute little dogs and kitties, flying away with them, sadly. :(
That's interesting, maybe it IS an urban legend about the chihuahua dog. But it is fact that a hawk picked Bebe, the African Grey parrot belonging to our freinds, off her perch on their deck and flew away with her.
This perp doesn't worry about the law, he was illegally carrying, has done it before and will undoubtedly do it again unless we lock him up for this and all of the other crimes he commits. Clearly, he doesn't care about permits.
That is exactly, 100%, spot on the reason 'gun control' doesn't work. I don't think the gun owners here have a problem with tougher background checks or longer waiting periods or whatever, we just don't think it will make any difference. People who are intent on promoting violence against others WILL find a way to do it. The fact that a weapon of choice is illegal and possessing it might land them in jail for 90 days won't deter a person who isn't already put off by the prospect of 50 concurrent life sentences, or even the death penalty, for mass murder.
Well, the group of guys who "doctored" the eagle and the baby were on a news show this morning. They are in a 3-D production class in a Montreal university. The challenge was if they could get more than 100 hits on the internet with their video, they would get an A. So the truth is out. On one hand, its cool, on the other hand, its scary that we can no longer believe what we see.
Yes, the video is fake. It's also a valuable lesson. The political leadership in the US is trying to employ a little trompe l' oeil of their own. What they're doing, or about to do, is what every politician has done for centuries. They're going to take steps that will make it look like they are aggressively going after a serious problem so their loyal subjects can sleep better at night. They will actually be taking the cheap, fast and easy way out and kicking the real can down the road just far enough to get it off their books.
I really do think that any kind of gun control isn't going to stop someone determined to acquire and use a gun. I've heard that for every gun legally for sale there are three on the black market*. I have no idea if that is accurate, but even if the ratio is 1:1 legislation will be completely ineffective because half the people buying and selling will simply ignore the law. The elephant in the room is still WHY would anyone want to shoot someone else and HOW do we identify the people at risk of that behavior and how do we help them BEFORE they decide that guns are the solution.
It's a very complicated question. The solution for the Adam Lanzas than is different than for the perps in Iris Lily's 'hood. It will probably take a generation and untold billions of dollars to make real progress because we have to fundamentally change the way our society does things so I don't at all blame the administration for sidestepping it in favor of politically expedient actions. That's what politicians do. Leaders go after the cause of problems, but I'm not sure I can remember the last time we had one of those.
*Remember, the majority of illegal assault rifle style guns are not made in the US. Most are manufactured in Eastern Europe and smuggled here so US law, including import laws, won't have any effect on the supply.
iris lily
12-20-12, 11:10am
That is exactly, 100%, spot on the reason 'gun control' doesn't work. I don't think the gun owners here have a problem with tougher background checks or longer waiting periods or whatever, we just don't think it will make any difference. People who are intent on promoting violence against others WILL find a way to do it. The fact that a weapon of choice is illegal and possessing it might land them in jail for 90 days won't deter a person who isn't already put off by the prospect of 50 concurrent life sentences, or even the death penalty, for mass murder.
I know, and it is humorous and nearly wacky to think that perps are deterred by The Man's laws.
But carry on, let Nanny G's minions line up to confiscate guns. I GUARANTEE my ghetto neighbors will have whatever caliber or instrument they want (well, can afford--they don't have a lot of money) regardless.
Spartana
12-20-12, 12:54pm
That is exactly, 100%, spot on the reason 'gun control' doesn't work. I don't think the gun owners here have a problem with tougher background checks or longer waiting periods or whatever, we just don't think it will make any difference. People who are intent on promoting violence against others WILL find a way to do it. The fact that a weapon of choice is illegal and possessing it might land them in jail for 90 days won't deter a person who isn't already put off by the prospect of 50 concurrent life sentences, or even the death penalty, for mass murder.
.
I agree. I think if you looked at things statisticly that of the 300 million resgistered guns out there, owned by tens of millions of people, only a tinyy fraction of those guns and people are ever involved in some kind of gun-related violence or accident. Probably 99.9% of gun owners are safe, sane, responsible people who use their guns in the manner they are meant for - be it sport and hobby, hunting or home and personal protection. Probably 99.9% of those guns have never been involved in a crime, or accidental or intentional shooting - and even less in a mass shooting. So for me, I trust that the majority of gun owners are in that 99.9% catagory of safe, sane and responsible owners. Just as I trust that every time I drive my car, the people around me in their SUVs and big rig trucks going 65 mph are safe, sane and responsible vehicle owners. That they know how to drive. That they are not drunk or on drugs. That they are not suicidal, homicidal, or in the grip of some paranoid delusion or phycotic break. That they aren't trxting, calling, eating, reading, putting on make up, etc... I assume I am relatively safe because I put a certain amount of trust in my fellow drivers. A trust that does get violated on occasion when thousands are killed each year by drunk or high drivers. Or by speeding, texting teens. Or just thru distracted drivers tuning the radio. Yet we continiue to trust our childrens lives everyday in our cars when we drive them to school. Or in the bus and driver that takes them. Even though bus drivers have killed kids thru negligence or even by being intoxicated. So I wouldn't take away the safe, sane and responsible drivers vehicle based on the number of people who die because of those who are dangerous - even though statistically they are much, much more likely to cause death and injury to people, including children, then the average gun owner. I don't see why the same trust can't be afforded the millions and millions of safe, sane and responsible gun owners.
Originally posted by Bae.
I am highly trained, and armed as I sit here typing this while eating my breakfast.What are you scared of, Bae?
Oh Bae.........you're so predictable.
Oh Bae.........you're so predictable.
I find bae's level of conviction refreshing.
Yes....refreshing.......just like a tea partier's conviction?
Contrary to popular opinion it is possible to appreciate someone who can hold their position when vastly outnumbered even if you don't hold precisely the same opinions.
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-12, 10:10am
Bae, obviously our opinions on the whole gun issue differ, and that's ok in my book. I understand this is a hot button topic for many and not all are going to agree with my stance. That being said, I'm just curious.....You live somewhere off the coast of Washington State I think it was? (beautiful country up there BTW, I sometimes miss the Northwest). Why are you armed at breakfast? Is it so dangerous up there now, or? I'm just trying to understand is all.....Rob
Gregg.....maybe its from my having been raised by a father who was dogmatic and unyielding. I, too, can appreciate and admire certain convictions. But when they are about certain beliefs that make no logical sense to me, and are delivered in a dogmatic, arrogant, unyielding way, then I no longer find it "refreshing".
Rob.....you just never know when one of those fruit loops could jump out at ya and overtake you! (Sorry Bae.....I just couldn't resist).
iris lily
12-21-12, 11:03am
Bae, obviously our opinions on the whole gun issue differ, and that's ok in my book. I understand this is a hot button topic for many and not all are going to agree with my stance. That being said, I'm just curious.....You live somewhere off the coast of Washington State I think it was? (beautiful country up there BTW, I sometimes miss the Northwest). Why are you armed at breakfast? Is it so dangerous up there now, or? I'm just trying to understand is all.....Rob
I'm not bae. But my DH is armed each and every day. He gets up and gets dressed, and into his pockets goes his wallet, his keys, his Swiss Army knife.
I imagine that it's the same with bae. The firearm isn't Some Big Deal it's just the daily thing you put on.
IL, are you comparing a Swiss Army knife to a gun?
Yes, it IS a big deal. That's what many people are saying. Saying that a gun is no big deal is incomprehensible to many of us, unless maybe you are in a war zone.
iris lily
12-21-12, 11:16am
IL, are you comparing a Swiss Army knife to a gun?
Yes, it IS a big deal. That's what many people are saying. Saying that a gun is no big deal is incomprehensible to many of us, unless maybe you are in a war zone.
DH is armed at a lower level. He is still armed and he puts it in his pocket every day.
I don't have a gun because I know that I wouldn't dedicate myself to the proper handling and care of it. It wouldn't be a "regular" thing in my life. Hell, I can barely remember how to operate and maintain my cell phone and in any emergency I could not take a photo of the perps. So--not a good idea for me to have a gun.
I'd rather be around someone who handles a gun every day than someone who is only an occasional gun handler or shooter, and emergency-user kind of guy.
I've love hanging out with Spartana and her sis, those girls know their firearms.
Originally posted by Iris Lily.
The firearm isn't Some Big Deal it's just the daily thing you put on.NO. It is a big deal. A firearm isn't just something, or a "daily thing" you put on. Normal everyday people don't do that IMO.
What are you scared of, Bae?
Nothing much at all, Mrs-M. Then again, I am a rational person, possessed of actual data, and capable of critical thinking.
Nothing much at all, Mrs-M. Then again, I am a rational person, possessed of actual data, and capable of critical thinking.
I have noticed that thorough preparation regarding a logically identified variable set also helps keep anxiety levels low.
I'm just curious.....You live somewhere off the coast of Washington State I think it was? (beautiful country up there BTW, I sometimes miss the Northwest). Why are you armed at breakfast? Is it so dangerous up there now, or? I'm just trying to understand is all.....Rob
Rob -
I get up in the morning. I put on my clothes. And I walk out of my bedroom to get the fire going and make breakfast. When I put on my clothes, as a matter of course, I install all the other daily impedimenta: I put a comb in my pocket, a pen in another pocket, a small knife in a pocket, a larger knife clipped to a pocket, and a gun in a holster in either a pocket or attached to my belt, depending on what I am wearing. It is simply part of getting dressed for me. It is simply what I have done for decades.
Carrying the gun is like wearing socks - I generally do, unless I am doing something that doesn't call for socks.
Why?
Fundamentally, I believe I have an affirmative moral duty to render aid to others to the best of my ability, so long as in doing so I do not sacrifice something of greater moral significance. It follows from that that I have a duty to be *prepared* to render aid to the best of my ability. That means proper training and possessing proper tools. Carrying a firearm and knowing how and when to use one imposes very little burden to me, it is part of my daily routine and not bothersome at all.
As to the relative danger sitting in my living room here on a remote island in the Pacific NW, who knows? The crime statistics here are quite low, in general. However, I am not a statistic, I am an individual, and do not wish to become a statistic. We have had home invasions here. We have had a local criminal who achieved nation-wide notoriety for his habit of breaking into homes and businesses for over a year here, some of them occupied at the time. We have loony meth cookers in the woods who are behaving more uncivilly each year. We have a lot of transient people wandering through the island who seem to take advantage of the fact that half the homes here are empty half the year. And we have police response time at my home of 30 mins to several hours, depending on the time of day.
And then there are threats that are quite specific to my family's circumstances, which I have detailed before on these forums.
But bottom-line, I'm armed at breakfast because it is just part of my normal routine. Then again, even if I didn't have any tools on my person, I'd still be armed :-)
But there's another side to the brain too Bae.........sensitivity, empathy, balance.
How do you feel about yourself, when you don't have a weapon on you? Just curious. I have the feeling you feel helpless.
Maybe some of us don't feel quite so helpless or even paranoid.
You and others here say that some of the people are unduly anxious, fearful. But we aren't the ones carrying weapons all the time.
But there's another side to the brain too Bae.........sensitivity, empathy, balance.
How do you feel about yourself, when you don't have a weapon on you? Just curious. I have the feeling you feel helpless.
Maybe some of us don't feel quite so helpless or even paranoid.
You and others here say that some of the people are unduly anxious, fearful. But we aren't the ones carrying weapons all the time.
Cathy, I think you are projecting your own feelings onto me.
I am never unarmed or helpless, even when I don't have tools. I have a brain, and skills, and experience.
I have fire insurance for my home, and have taken some care to follow the Firewise program to prepare my home for wildfire, as I live in a forest. Does that make me "paranoid" about fires? Heck, I'm going through the Fire Academy right now for my firefighting certification, and would charge into a burning building to rescue your kid, does that make me an anxious fearful person? I'll finish up my EMT certification this summer, is that because I feel helpless about medical emergencies?
No. I am simply preparing to deal with life's little uncertainties the best I can, and being in a position to be able to help my friends and neighbors.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019949651_apwatoughspokaneclerk.html
A clerk being held up at knife point clocked the guy. I love this story. Posting it here for the heck of it.
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-12, 12:10pm
NO. It is a big deal. A firearm isn't just something, or a "daily thing" you put on. Normal everyday people don't do that IMO.+1000 Mrs. M. I could not possibly agree with you more. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-12, 12:28pm
I'm not trying to hijack this thread here but I have a thought I'd like to drop - do you feel any differently about someone who run across (other than police or security guards or such) that is carrying a gun in public? I know I do.....my first instinct is to politely just get away. I do make exceptions for police or security guards that are armed as I understand this is part of the normal course of their jobs. I would (possibly) make an exception for someone I have known a number of years - if I knew them to be stable - though I would wonder what's up with the carrying the gun in public? I bring this up there as IL posted that carrying a gun was no big deal - a stance to which I am 180 away from. So what do others think? Rob
Originally posted by Gimmethesimplelife.
do you feel any differently about someone who run across (other than police or security guards or such) that is carrying a gun in public? I know I do.....my first instinct is to politely just get away. Absolutely.
sweetana3
12-21-12, 12:47pm
Schools should allow guns when Federal Buildings allow guns. When hell freezes over would be their response.
IshbelRobertson
12-21-12, 12:53pm
I iced my Christmas cakes today.
The spirit of Christmas makes the topic of gun ownership less than appealling.
I haven't come across that, but I wouldn't feel comfortable. I would start thinking "what's he doing?" "Why" "What is his psychological make-up" "What is planning on doing," etc., etc. I would distance myself for sure.
Yes, I would love to see a gun-free world, but that's never going to happen. I don't even mind if people want to protect their homes. But where do we stop? We can see that so far, there's really been no stopping point. What's wrong with a stopping point?
What's wrong with a stopping point?There are stopping points, they're called gun free zones. You can usually recognize them as the preferred location for mass killings.
I prefer to have the stopping points be on the selling side.........
I prefer to have them be on the PRE-selling side.
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 2:20pm
I prefer the mothers having aborted these killers in the first place.
Ok, that's humor there, sick humor, very very sick :~)
I prefer to have the stopping points be on the selling side.........
Presumably you are familiar with the existing "stopping points" at purchase?
- The call in and verification by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
- No sales to people under felony indictment
- No sales to fugitives from justice
- No sales to unlawful users of, or people addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance
- No sales to those who have been adjudicated mentally defective, or who have ever been committed to a mental instutution
- No sales to those discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
- No sales to those subject to a court order restraining them from harasssing, stalking, or threatening their child or an intimate partner or child of such partner
- No sales to those convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
- No sales to those who have renounced US citizenship
- No sales to aliens illegally in the United States
And those are just the barest of the Federal restrictions, there are more, and individual states often have further requirements.
So, just what additional "stopping points" are you looking for?
"No sales to human beings, ever"?
I'm not trying to hijack this thread here but I have a thought I'd like to drop - do you feel any differently about someone who run across (other than police or security guards or such) that is carrying a gun in public? I know I do.....my first instinct is to politely just get away. I do make exceptions for police or security guards that are armed as I understand this is part of the normal course of their jobs. I would (possibly) make an exception for someone I have known a number of years - if I knew them to be stable - though I would wonder what's up with the carrying the gun in public? I bring this up there as IL posted that carrying a gun was no big deal - a stance to which I am 180 away from. So what do others think? Rob In most cases you probably wouldn't even know the person is armed. Like Bae, carrying a gun (a smallish pistol in my case) is just part of my daily attire (although it's usually in my purse). No one would see it or know it's there, and I don't go about branishing it. No one would even suspect that that woman in the blonde Barbie pony tail and pink "Hello Kitty" hoodie is armed. You never know! And for most of us with concealedcarry permits, we don't want you to know and certain don't go about advertising it.
...- do you feel any differently about someone who run across (other than police or security guards or such) that is carrying a gun in public? I know I do.....my first instinct is to politely just get away.
I understand that some people fear members of different cultures, and do things like crossing the street to avoid walking next to them when they see them coming, not living in neighborhoods with those cultures present, and so on. It seems to me that generally this fear isn't based on a rational risk analysis, but rather on simple prejudice or ignorance.
I prefer to be more inclusive in my life.
This wasn't a "are you scared of every different person out there" question. Its about a person carrying a gun. You're trying to make those of us who don't like a lot of guns out there as afraid, bigoted. ignorant people. And that's NOT the issue here.
San Onofre Guy
12-21-12, 3:45pm
I am a "with freedom comes responsibility" type of person. I know of so many gun owners who "think" they are responsible. Having firearms that are not locked up is not being responsible. Most cops I know place their gun in a locked safe when they get home at night. If the mother would have locked her guns away, she and all of those children and teachers would be alive today.
Bigoted because you're anti-gun on some level? Naw, I don't see that at all. And prejudice can be something as simple as choosing A over B and as long as no one is hurt by that choice, who cares? Now, afraid and ignorant...maybe. Ignorant not at all in any sense of being stupid, but possibly in the sense of not being in possession of ALL the facts. It is completely human to gather information from sources that tend to support our existing beliefs. That does not mean those beliefs are wrong, only that our exposure to other ideas can become limited. All of us do it to at least some degree and it does leave us with something short of the whole picture, especially when we start out with preconceived notions of what is right and wrong (like we all did in this discussion).
As for being afraid, a lot of human fear seems to arise when we are presented with something we don't fully understand. A perceived or possible threat. Again, perfectly understandable and the only way to relieve that fear is to learn more about whatever it is we're afraid of. Guns can obviously be like that. If I had not spent time around them and people who use them and was thrust into a situation where I knew people were armed I would absolutely feel threatened. I would be afraid. In that situation the person who wasn't afraid would, IMO, be the crazy one. If I take the time to learn more I may or may not decide there is not a reason to worry in that situation and about those people, but the choice would then be made through a rational process. If I was cast into a situation at the other end of the spectrum and someone who was obviously disturbed was pointing a gun at me or actually shooting at me then no amount of information I could gather would convince me that person is not a threat. Fortunately the odds are good that none of us will ever be in that situation so we have time to gather information and make logical, reasonable choices.
I am a "with freedom comes responsibility" type of person. I know of so many gun owners who "think" they are responsible. Having firearms that are not locked up is not being responsible. Most cops I know place their gun in a locked safe when they get home at night. If the mother would have locked her guns away, she and all of those children and teachers would be alive today.
I totally agree with the responsibility part. No way of knowing what would have happened if the mother's guns were locked up. Lanza might have stayed home in his room. He might have held her at knife point and made her open the safe. He might have scored illegal guns off the street. He might have ignited a full propane cylinder, blown up half the school and killed 200 kids instead of 20. That's part of the problem dealing with people who are suffering from mental illness, they're often unpredictable and the clever ones can be pretty resourceful, too.
I am a "with freedom comes responsibility" type of person. I know of so many gun owners who "think" they are responsible. Having firearms that are not locked up is not being responsible. Most cops I know place their gun in a locked safe when they get home at night. If the mother would have locked her guns away, she and all of those children and teachers would be alive today. And how many people, including children, will be killed in drunk driving or careless driving accidents over the holidays because people think they are responsible drivers and/or drinking drivers no matter waht the situataion? Lets ban all vehicles for all people because of the few aren't responsible drivers.
Lets ban all vehicles for all people because of the few aren't responsible drivers.
Don't forget to ban alcohol too. And elderly drivers. And drivers with sleep apnea.
ApatheticNoMore
12-21-12, 4:32pm
If it's come down to every teacher having a gun on campus or a gun ban on everything tommorow then you could easily sell me on the latter. Be quiet in class and don't speak until called or else tap tap on the hip .... Like many of those kids don't have to deal with plenty scary authority figures at home (already scared and scarred), without having to deal with armed teachers.
Spartana.........it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. That's what some of you gun owners are acting like.......like if we ban assault weapons, then you'll lose your smaller gun. There's a very long continuum of possibilities of maximizing safety.
And I think there should be more effort to deal with elderly drivers and alcoholic drivers. We don't have to ban everyone all the time. For example............I heard recently that all cars in a couple years will not start if you breath into a test thing in the car and your alcohol level is up. I'm sure many people will go crazy over this.......that its taking away the rights of people who can drink and still drive responsibly. ?? But I think its a great idea.
There are so many intermediate things that could be done in many areas, to demand more from our people, than banning everything. But what I seem to consistently hear from gun owners, is that they don't want any gun banned, because they want the freedom to always have everything they want. Period.
Instead of constantly looking at everything from the "what's in it for me" standpoint, why can't we think about what's good for everyone overall? What would make our country a safer, healthier place?
Spartana.........it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. That's what some of you gun owners are acting like.......like if we ban assault weapons, then you'll lose your smaller gun. There's a very long continuum of possibilities of maximizing safety.
We are already subject to thousands of gun laws, most of which serve no purpose other than to cause annoyance and waste time and money.
Banning "assault rifles" is the cry of the day, but most of the people crying out have little real knowledge or experience with firearms.
"Assault rifles" that are sold to civilians in the USA are very little different from other rifles commonly sold and used.
"Assault rifles" overwhelmingly are not used by their owners for evil purposes.
"Assault rifles" are simply "modern" firearms. I put "modern" in quotes because most of the designs date from the 1950s.
This is a modern, top-selling Remington sporting rifle:
http://www.remington.com/~/media/Images/Firearms/Centerfire/Model-R15/Model-R-15/R-15-30-AR-prod.ashx
This is a Colt AR-15 carbine:
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/7000.jpg
See any similarity?
Miss Cellane
12-21-12, 5:06pm
And how many people, including children, will be killed in drunk driving or careless driving accidents over the holidays because people think they are responsible drivers and/or drinking drivers no matter waht the situataion? Lets ban all vehicles for all people because of the few aren't responsible drivers.
Well, we are constantly working to make cars safer. New airbags, new seatbelts (I remember my parents' old cars--they didn't have *any* seatbelts), new, better, improved signals, crumple zones, etc. There's constant research and car manufacturers are continually adding things to cars to make them safer. Plus the addition of safer car seats for children. And in recent years, many states have moved to a gradual licensing system for younger drivers, giving them more responsibility slowly, instead of putting them out on the road at 16 with little experience.
Plus things to make driving safer--better traffic signals, road signs, traffic calming, etc.
What are we doing to improve gun safety? I ask this in all honesty, because I don't own a gun, only know a few people who do and they just hunt a few times a year, and have no ties to the gun community. So there may be all sorts of things happening that I know nothing about.
Originally posted by ApatheticNoMore.
If it's come down to every teacher having a gun on campus or a gun ban on everything tommorow then you could easily sell me on the latter.Jot me down on the list, too, Re: selling me on the latter.
It dumbfounds me to the nth, how whenever there's a tragedy such as the Connecticut shooting, people for a free gun-nation always suggest MORE GUNS, and/or, let's issue guns to teachers, doctors, nurses, and janitors, and so on and so forth, yet, push come to shove, for every hundred more people who'd be placed in a do or die situation when faced with an armed adversary, my bet is that more than 75% would fail, because EVERYONE IS NOT BORN A NATURAL KILLER, AND NOT EVERYONE CAN OR IS WILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH TRAINING, yet this is exactly the negative sentiment and solution I garner out of topics such as this whenever they arise. It's bad enough that the idea (itself) is dangerous, but the frequency of such, as in how often it's mentioned, is what I find the most dangerous.
Not everyone is willing to take another human life, even when faced with a do or die situation, yet the gun-culture in the US, promotes this continually, and that tells me that human life among gun-toting US citizens, means very little.
Maybe the new NRA mantra can be, human life, nothing more than an advanced and elusive target to hone in on and stop dead in it's tracks, to help bolster and build the credentials of ones societal standing in the world of, look at me. The red colour signifying a society bent on seeing further bloodshed and loss.
catherine
12-21-12, 5:14pm
In answer to Mrs-M:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/77091_441102609278591_913426085_n.jpg
Spartana.........it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. That's what some of you gun owners are acting like.......like if we ban assault weapons, then you'll lose your smaller gun. There's a very long continuum of possibilities of maximizing safety.
But my handgun (shot gun, hunting rifle, etc...) is an assault weapon. There is really no difference between a small semi-automatic pistol and an assault type rifle in terms of killing power. As I pointed out in either this or the other thread, almost all firearms can be rapidly fired and reloaded almost instantly - and continuously - so that a small pistol or revolver an function just like a weapon with a large capacity magazine. The proposed ban to me doesn't deal with the cause of gun violence at all. It is the same as trying to deal with drunk or distracted drivers by banning all large vehicles - irregardless of how safe those drivers are - while allowing smaller vehicles, whiich can be just as deadly, in the hands of those who still drink and drive or are reckless drivers. You are eliminating one tool amongst many, but not eliminating the cause at all. A drunk driver in a Smart car can kill just as easily as a drunk driver in an SUV. A crazy madman can kill (and kill many) with a small pistol just as easily as he can with a semi automatic rifle. At least at close range. I happen to have what would be called an assault rifle as well as several other firerms. I am just as safe and sane with that firearm as I am with my small handguns. If I wasn't, then it really wouldn't matter what type of fireatm I had - just as it wouldn't matter what type of car I was driving if I was drunk or delusional.
catherine
12-21-12, 5:22pm
But my handgun (shot gun, hunting rifle, etc...) is an assault weapon. As I pointed out in either this or the other thread, almost all firearms can be rapidly fired and reloaded almost instantly - and continuously - so that a small pistol or revolver an function just like a weapon with a large capacity magazine. ... A crazy madman can kill (and kill many) with a small pistol just as easily as he can with a semi automatic rifle.
This is off the topic, but Spartana's post makes me think about how horrified I am that a person could intentionally point a gun at a group of children and pull a trigger 100 times. At first I thought that he must have had a fully-automatic gun, like a machine gun, but my husband (a Marine), said that, no, semi-automatic means that you have to pull the trigger every time. How absolutely horrifying is that.. to make a choice every second for several minutes to kill innocent human beings.
I don't know if one gun is better than another, but I think we're still living out more than seven generations of violence in this country starting from when we committed genocide towards the native Americans.
Catherine. THAT IS PERFECT!!! It captures the asininity of masking an existing serious problem, thus creating an even bigger, more serious problem.
Miss Cellane
12-21-12, 5:40pm
But my handgun (shot gun, hunting rifle, etc...) is an assault weapon. There is really no difference between a small semi-automatic pistol and an assault type rifle in terms of killing power. As I pointed out in either this or the other thread, almost all firearms can be rapidly fired and reloaded almost instantly - and continuously - so that a small pistol or revolver an function just like a weapon with a large capacity magazine. The proposed ban to me doesn't deal with the cause of gun violence at all. It is the same as trying to deal with drunk or distracted drivers by banning all large vehicles - irregardless of how safe those drivers are - while allowing smaller vehicles, whiich can be just as deadly, in the hands of those who still drink and drive or are reckless drivers. You are eliminating one tool amongst many, but not eliminating the cause at all. A drunk driver in a Smart car can kill just as easily as a drunk driver in an SUV. A crazy madman can kill (and kill many) with a small pistol just as easily as he can with a semi automatic rifle. At least at close range. I happen to have what would be called an assault rifle as well as several other firerms. I am just as safe and sane with that firearm as I am with my small handguns. If I wasn't, then it really wouldn't matter what type of fireatm I had - just as it wouldn't matter what type of car I was driving if I was drunk or delusional.
And when you think about it, it's a lot easier to hide a handgun than it is a shotgun or rifle.
When considering anything the NRA has to say, you have to remember that it is the lobbying arm of weapons manufacturers. Of course their answer to everything is more guns!
Well, we are constantly working to make cars safer. New airbags, new seatbelts (I remember my parents' old cars--they didn't have *any* seatbelts), new, better, improved signals, crumple zones, etc. There's constant research and car manufacturers are continually adding things to cars to make them safer. Plus the addition of safer car seats for children. And in recent years, many states have moved to a gradual licensing system for younger drivers, giving them more responsibility slowly, instead of putting them out on the road at 16 with little experience.
Plus things to make driving safer--better traffic signals, road signs, traffic calming, etc.
What are we doing to improve gun safety? I ask this in all honesty, because I don't own a gun, only know a few people who do and they just hunt a few times a year, and have no ties to the gun community. So there may be all sorts of things happening that I know nothing about.
Well I was thinking more along the lines of getting hit or run over by another person driving their car rather then safety factors in your own vehicle when driving. Although I can see getting pretty squished if getting in an accident if you drove a Smart Car - wouldn't be much safer then a motorcycle if you were hit. But guns for the most part are pretty simple things and besides having safty devices to keep a loaded weapon from firering when the trigger is pulled, there aren't many safety devices you can add. But you can institute gun laws that have more requirements to buy, own, use, and carry a firearm. I'm all for that and feel that there should be many more requirements then we currently have - even higher then those that are in the states, like Calif, that have the toughest gun laws. However, as I've said before, my firm belief is that it will not make any difference what so ever to a crazy mass shooter - just like it wouldn't make a difference to a drunk driver what kind of car he was driving. . He/she will find one way or another even if so-called semi-auto assault rifles and extended magazines were banned. We already had that ban up until 2004 - and currently ban extened magazines in Calif - but it didn't do any good then and I don't believe it will do any good now.
In answer to Mrs-M:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/77091_441102609278591_913426085_n.jpg But is the solution to stop the hitting to take away all the rocks - from everyone everywhere? And to take away everything else that can be used to hit each other with> I think the solution is to deal with the child so that he doesn't hit in the first place, not to ban rocks and everything else. Now exactly HOW to do that is the question but I'm sure this is something parents deal with all the time.
catherine
12-21-12, 5:59pm
This poster doesn't say that rocks should be BANNED, it says it doesn't make sense to give every kid a rock--i.e. it doesn't make sense to give every teacher a gun.
I agree you have to deal with the child. I think that's the point. Dealing with the "child" doesn't equate to arming everyone else.
Originally posted by Spartana.
I think the solution is to deal with the child so that he doesn't hit in the first place, not to ban rocks and everything else.Solid idea in theory, but I'll let you make the walk to all the doorsteps of the homes where the parents live, who lost a child in the shooting, and present your fix to them. Pretty hard to resurrect the killer and make it all better again.
This is off the topic, but Spartana's post makes me think about how horrified I am that a person could intentionally point a gun at a group of children and pull a trigger 100 times. At first I thought that he must have had a fully-automatic gun, like a machine gun, but my husband (a Marine), said that, no, semi-automatic means that you have to pull the trigger every time. How absolutely horrifying is that.. to make a choice every second for several minutes to kill innocent human beings.
I don't know if one gun is better than another, but I think we're still living out more than seven generations of violence in this country starting from when we committed genocide towards the native Americans.
This is what is horrifing to me too. I just can not grasp it. I can't even get my mind around it. When ever I think about it, as I am now, I just break down weeping (as I am now in a public library looking like a crazy person probably :-)!). I can not even envision a hardened criminal being capable of this. He must have been mentally ill as I just can see no other explanation.
Since your hubby was a Marine, he knows what I'm taking about in terms of being able to rapid fire and reload a firearm even with a small capacity magazine or using speed loaders for a revolver. It's something everyone who has been in the military must qualify and re-qualify for all the time, for each of the firearms they will use. It takes one second to pop out an old magazine and pop in another magazine - if that - and you can continue shooting hundreds of rounds without ever stopping. This is why the whole semi-auto assault rifle ban is meaningless in this case.
Now I'm a weeping mess (and I don't weep easily) so I am going to leave these kinds of threads for those wiser and more knowledible then me and focus on other things - like christmas cookies and hot rum toddies ;-)!
And when you think about it, it's a lot easier to hide a handgun than it is a shotgun or rifle. to hide many of them. Easy to make a shot gun smaller and hide that too.
The NRA, needs you, Spartana.
This poster doesn't say that rocks should be BANNED, it says it doesn't make sense to give every kid a rock--i.e. it doesn't make sense to give every teacher a gun.
I agree you have to deal with the child. I think that's the point. Dealing with the "child" doesn't equate to arming everyoelse.I agree. I personally don't think anyone should be allowed to own a firearm who isn't highly trained, and re-trained and qualified, on a regular bsis, licensed, registered, background checks, criminal and mental health checks, etc.... And that includes hunters, sport and hobby shooters and even collectors if shoot their firearms.
Expecting teachers to be de facto SWAT team members on top of all their other duties--for the lowest possible pay--is just laugh out loud ridiculous.
Yossarian
12-21-12, 6:38pm
Expecting teachers to be de facto SWAT team members on top of all their other duties--for the lowest possible pay--is just laugh out loud ridiculous.
Agreed given most of the teachers I know, but don't most of the suggestions focus on just having a limited number of voluntary protectors?
Agreed given most of the teachers I know, but don't most of the suggestions focus on just having a limited number of voluntary protectors?
I've heard mandatory armed guards suggested--and I certainly hope these wouldn't be anything like the ineffective old duffers who used to "guard" my workplace. I've also heard suggestions that teachers should pack heat and that "husky 12-year-olds" could be taught to gang-rush attackers. Some of this stuff just invites ridicule.
Solid idea in theory, but I'll let you make the walk to all the doorsteps of the homes where the parents live, who lost a child in the shooting, and present your fix to them. Pretty hard to resurrect the killer and make it all better again. Sadly you are so right Mrs. M. There is no way to go back and stop the madness before it happened. It's really sad to know that Adam Lanza Mom or other friends and family didn't see something was wrong. Or if they did, didn't have anyway to help him since he was an adult. But my hope is that we will look closer at mental illness and the reasons and rational that spark such rage and violence and that we can find a way to reduce or eliminate it. Unfortunately, as I have been trying to say in these threads (and I promise this is the last time I say it :-)!) my belief is that the Adam Lanzas of the world will not be stopped by something like a ban on certain types of firearms. I believe that even if his Mom had nothing more in the house then the same firearms you and your hubby have (hunting rifles and shotguns I believe you said you guys have) that he would and could have done almost as much harm as he did with the rifle he had. To me the ban on semi-auto rifles is a panacea. Something to soothe the public minds but won't address the real issues or how to fix those issues.
And no Mrs. M - the NRA doesn't want me because, contrary to what you believe, I strongly believe in having much stricter gun laws. Laws that would require even hunters and sport shooters with rifles and shotguns to be licensed, registered, trained and qualified on their firearms. Subject to background and mental health checks. That would make the NRA cringe!!
catherine
12-21-12, 7:41pm
Now I'm a weeping mess (and I don't weep easily) so I am going to leave these kinds of threads for those wiser and more knowledible then me and focus on other things - like christmas cookies and hot rum toddies ;-)!
Sound like a great idea... !
ETA, the hot rum and toddie is a great idea--not the idea that you should leave these threads to wiser people--you're one of the wiser ones (not sure how that came across)!!
Originally posted by Spartana.
I am going to leave these kinds of threads for those wiser and more knowledible then me and focus on other thingsDon't be silly (silly-willy). :) I have utmost admiration and respect for your thoughts/experience/expertise in this field. You bring a high yield of quality input to the forum, both in the area of topics such as this, as well as other topics, too. I love you for that!
Originally posted by Spartana.
the NRA doesn't want me because, contrary to what you believe, I strongly believe in having much stricter gun laws.I know you do, and you have way more class, too! These darned gun-control topics tend to excrete the best out of people, don't they.
gimmethesimplelife
12-21-12, 9:07pm
The NRA, needs you, Spartana.+1 Rob
Yossarian
12-21-12, 11:44pm
I've heard mandatory armed guards suggested--and I certainly hope these wouldn't be anything like the ineffective old duffers who used to "guard" my workplace.
Maybe if we spent our money better we could do it right.
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/12566_434397579963206_179469701_n.jpg
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems...
....Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for "COPS in School," a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
...."Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need," Clinton said.
ApatheticNoMore
12-22-12, 1:18am
The schools are mostly funded at the state level and at the state level the money is not there (it's really not, I just voted to raise taxes just to keep the schools going at all). Oh and by the way that's probably a music or arts program that will NOT be funded for the school with that money, or a class size that won't be reduced. We certainly don't even know that having this security actually reduces crime at schools. Heck at the risk of being hippy, maybe the music and arts programs would do more to reduce violence, I don't doubt they generally have a beneficial effect. And we just don't know that all the security does much to reduce violence at all.
Wildflower
12-22-12, 3:01am
The schools are mostly funded at the state level and at the state level the money is not there (it's really not, I just voted to raise taxes just to keep the schools going at all). Oh and by the way that's probably a music or arts program that will NOT be funded for the school with that money, or a class size that won't be reduced. We certainly don't even know that having this security actually reduces crime at schools. Heck at the risk of being hippy, maybe the music and arts programs would do more to reduce violence, I don't doubt they generally have a beneficial effect. And we just don't know that all the security does much to reduce violence at all.
I think the music and arts progras are very beneficial, but that's for the artistic and musical kids, really a minority when I was in school. Security would benefit ALL students...
An armed security guard/officer would be a HUGE deterrent to someone wanting to come in and shoot up the school.... Worth paying for in my opinion. Our kids need to be kept as safe as possible!
Wildflower
12-22-12, 3:08am
That's interesting, maybe it IS an urban legend about the chihuahua dog. But it is fact that a hawk picked Bebe, the African Grey parrot belonging to our freinds, off her perch on their deck and flew away with her.
That is really sad about Bebe, IL. :(
And I don't doubt that chihuahuas are picked up by predatory birds, just the story about the chi on the leash seems to be making the rounds on the net. I'm sure it could be true though....
Miss Cellane
12-22-12, 7:30am
Sadly you are so right Mrs. M. There is no way to go back and stop the madness before it happened. It's really sad to know that Adam Lanza Mom or other friends and family didn't see something was wrong. Or if they did, didn't have anyway to help him since he was an adult. But my hope is that we will look closer at mental illness and the reasons and rational that spark such rage and violence and that we can find a way to reduce or eliminate it. Unfortunately, as I have been trying to say in these threads (and I promise this is the last time I say it :-)!) my belief is that the Adam Lanzas of the world will not be stopped by something like a ban on certain types of firearms. I believe that even if his Mom had nothing more in the house then the same firearms you and your hubby have (hunting rifles and shotguns I believe you said you guys have) that he would and could have done almost as much harm as he did with the rifle he had. To me the ban on semi-auto rifles is a panacea. Something to soothe the public minds but won't address the real issues or how to fix those issues.
And no Mrs. M - the NRA doesn't want me because, contrary to what you believe, I strongly believe in having much stricter gun laws. Laws that would require even hunters and sport shooters with rifles and shotguns to be licensed, registered, trained and qualified on their firearms. Subject to background and mental health checks. That would make the NRA cringe!!
There have been some reports that his mother was trying to do the paperwork necessary to become the shooter's guardian or conservator, with the goal of then being able to put him in a suitable facility without his consent.
The speculation is that this is what might have set the shooter off on his spree.
Yossarian
12-22-12, 7:33am
Our kids need to be kept as safe as possible!
Statistically I'm not sure this is the biggest problem kids face and the money is probably rationally spent better elsewhere, but it may be the least bad alternative if people feel they have to do something. And who knows, there could be ancillary benefits that make it a better proposition.
Aqua Blue
12-22-12, 8:53am
My thought would be to fence all schools with high fences with barbed wire at the top. Since we are bringing so many military home why not use them at the gate?
Or how about bars on the doors and the lower windows? Would bullet-proof glass work?
I can't believe we're even talking about these things. :(
WSJ article on the data, of possible interest:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
Good article, thanks for posting.
Just go to a gun show. I'm ready to see that loophole closed now, and I'm hopeful that will finally get done.
also, note something not on this list: sales to those on the terrorist watch list. Why? Because the NRA's political power was successful in making it illegal to allow review of names on the terrorist watch list with names on gun applications. And this is despite 9/11.
Finally, the tide is turning.
gimmethesimplelife
12-22-12, 10:34am
Just go to a gun show. I'm ready to see that loophole closed now, and I'm hopeful that will finally get done.
also, note something not on this list: sales to those on the terrorist watch list. Why? Because the NRA's political power was successful in making it illegal to allow review of names on the terrorist watch list with names on gun applications. And this is despite 9/11.
Finally, the tide is turning.I did not know this, I honestly did not. Chilling. I think less of this society now that I know this. I can only hope as you say that the tide is turning. But there is just no excuse for the comparison of names to be illegal.....If anyone lost their life due to this, the NRA should be paying millions and I mean millions to the aggrieved families. This of course won't bring anyone back, I get that, but as a punitive measure and hopefully with ample and above media coverage.
As I have posted before, I often feel like I am just going through the motions in this society. Based on the above, perhaps there will be some who can understand why I would feel this way. Rob
In answer to Mrs-M:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/77091_441102609278591_913426085_n.jpg
Nor is the solution to ban rocks.
There have been some reports that his mother was trying to do the paperwork necessary to become the shooter's guardian or conservator, with the goal of then being able to put him in a suitable facility without his consent.
The speculation is that this is what might have set the shooter off on his spree.
Not that that many details have been forthcoming, but as a parent of a low functioning adult child, I don't understand why more wasn't done to prepare the shooter for transitioning into adulthood. It sounds like he was coasting through mainstreaming (placing someone with special needs with the regular students), with no real plan of where he would go as an adult. That he may not be able to live independently as an adult should have been acknowledged and prepared for years before he was 20. If nothing else, he would have been aware of the issues involved and had time to acclimate to it.
Yossarian
12-22-12, 11:46am
I did not know this, I honestly did not. Chilling. I think less of this society now that I know this. I can only hope as you say that the tide is turning. But there is just no excuse for the comparison of names to be illegal.
I wonder- what is the due process check for having one's name placed on the list? Can all constitutional rights be curtailed by bureaucratic fiat? What's chiiling is the thought that it could. I guess I know the answer with respect to Obama's drone policy by so far that only seems to apply if you leave home.
ApatheticNoMore
12-22-12, 12:31pm
Oh whatever, the people on the list are often not allowed to fly, the people on the list are barred from most online finanical transactions outright, just trust me on this one, all the big credit agencies screen this. And my main concern should be whether or not they can get guns.
Spartana
12-22-12, 12:58pm
Don't be silly (silly-willy). :) I have utmost admiration and respect for your thoughts/experience/expertise in this field. You bring a high yield of quality input to the forum, both in the area of topics such as this, as well as other topics, too. I love you for that!
I know you do, and you have way more class, too! These darned gun-control topics tend to excrete the best out of people, don't they.
Thanks Mrs. M and Catherine!! But I think I'll stick to hot toddies, egg noggs and cookies for awhile and give the gun debate thread a rest now (and the forum members a rest from me :-)!!)
Thanks Mrs. M and Catherine!! But I think I'll stick to hot toddies, egg noggs and cookies for awhile and give the gun debate thread a rest now (and the forum members a rest from me :-)!!)If it's any consolation to you, I'm going to join you on giving this topic a rest. :)
Golly, gosh, darn it... the eggnog and cookies sound yummy!!!
iris lily
12-22-12, 5:27pm
Or how about bars on the doors and the lower windows? Would bullet-proof glass work?
I can't believe we're even talking about these things. :(
But these are all common in the schools in my area, the urban core.
I haven't been able to find any reports of an armed citizen stopping the Clackamas Town Center shooting, either.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
I haven't been able to find any reports of an armed citizen stopping the Clackamas Town Center shooting, either.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
According to several reports, the shooter in that case saw the subject of your story pointing his weapon at him and decided to end his own life at that point.
In the other cases I cited earlier, armed citizens confronted the shooter with their weapons and were able to stop and hold them without resorting to firing. There is no doubt that the mere presence of weapons has an effect on criminals.
Hoping I'm in the right thread for a change:
Many years ago an article I read posited that our crime rate would plummet if we just incarcerated adolescent males until they matured--obviously a pipe dream. But maybe we could keep a closer eye on disturbed, medicated males who seem preoccupied with violence and couldn't get laid if their lives depended on it.
According to several reports, the shooter in that case saw the subject of your story pointing his weapon at him and decided to end his own life at that point.
In the other cases I cited earlier, armed citizens confronted the shooter with their weapons and were able to stop and hold them without resorting to firing. There is no doubt that the mere presence of weapons has an effect on criminals.
Since a lot of these shooters seem to be looking to go out in a blaze of glory--like "suicide by cop"--I doubt they would think twice about armed citizens. IMO, this is more than a problem of too many guns (though I think there are too many guns).
Hoping I'm in the right thread for a change:
LOL, you've got this one in another thread as well, but with so many venues with similar, if not identical, themes to choose from, I can't remember which.
I keep cutting and pasting and deleting...I think I'll just go outside and look for fireballs.
Some data, with sources:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html
Today's murder rate is essentially at a low point of the past century. The murder rate in 2011 was lower than it was in 1911.
And the trend is downward. Whatever we've been doing over the last 20-30 years seems to be working, more or less. The murder rate has been cut by more than half since 1980: from 10.7 to 4.7.
We can only speculate on what might be behind this trend, but I will point out a few interesting facts.
• From 1980 to 2000 our prison population more than quadrupled.
• From the 1980s to 2000, the number of prisoner executions more than quadrupled.
• From 1986 to 2006, the number of states adopting "shall issue" Concealed Carry permits nearly quadrupled.
Yossarian
12-27-12, 8:18pm
Good article. I believe Vermont is a no permit state, as in no permit required to carry. Anyone who wants to can carry. Yet their murder rate is lower than Canada. Fascinating.
flowerseverywhere
12-28-12, 2:25pm
bae, your article was excellent food for thought.
I read a lot of history, and since there was more than one person on the earth there has been violence. Through the years women have been raped and enslaved, men murdered, children victimized etc. In the last 100 years, a relatively civilized era compared to a lot of history the Holocaust, Darfur and Rhwanda , Boznia, Cambodia killing fields, My Lei massacre, numerous wars with bombs dropped, shots fired, forests and fields torched, the whole priest sex abuse scandal, and I bet every one of us can recall a murder of a child somewhere close to where you live being tortured and beat to death by a parent. Drive by shootings, the nut who set his house on fire in Webster NY last week and killed the first responders. Just to kill. you name it, our so called civilized societies have done it. So much genocide and ethnic cleansing and plain old murder. The Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 were carried out with the intent to kill those who were innocent.
Maybe it has nothing to do with video games or TV or who does or does not have guns, but rather the fact there are a lot of evil people out there who given the chance will kill, rape, torture, enslave and pilfer.
So how to feel like you are doing all you can to protect yourself? A lot of people have turned to guns.
Maybe it has nothing to do with video games or TV or who does or does not have guns, but rather the fact there are a lot of evil people out there who given the chance will kill, rape, torture, enslave and pilfer.
I read a weird little story - someone was researching about helping turtles get across roads and found a certain percentage of people go out of their way to intentionally squish them with their cars. Not on the same order as the behaviors mentioned above, but it really makes you wonder what goes on in people's minds...
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_22271684/college-students-turtle-project-takes-dark-twist
SteveinMN
12-28-12, 3:13pm
So how to feel like you are doing all you can to protect yourself?
I just go on living my life. There's a difference between clear-and-present potential for danger (wandering the streets of my neighborhood at 3 a.m., standing on a subway platform when some obviously-mentally-ill person is milling about, etc.) and living a shallow joyless life because you're afraid of what could happen. I can eat at a raw-foods restaurant in town to avoid the problems linked to, say, broiled meat, and get salmonella poisoning because nothing I ate was cooked. Jim Fixx was a famous runner and died in his 40s of genetic and lifestyle factors -- so much for all that exercise.
It's very much a matter of the real statistical risk (not the sensationalized risk presented by the media) compared to the "price" of eliminating that level of risk. Sometimes, when the weather forecast calls for a 40% chance of rain, I go without my umbrella. And sometimes I get wet. OTOH, I carry insurance on my house because the kind of money it takes to replace that ain't exactly walking around money. So I choose to do something other than nothing, but I do not prepare for every eventuality in the world. That runs contrary to many of my other values. And I don't worry about it.
Miss Cellane
12-28-12, 3:54pm
I read a weird little story - someone was researching about helping turtles get across roads and found a certain percentage of people go out of their way to intentionally squish them with their cars. Not on the same order as the behaviors mentioned above, but it really makes you wonder what goes on in people's minds...
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_22271684/college-students-turtle-project-takes-dark-twist
More than once, I've seen a car or truck swerve to hit a squirrel in the road, instead of avoiding it. There are all sorts of people in the world.
As for protecting myself from a spree killer--frankly, I don't think you can. If someone is really determined to kill people at a certain place and time, they pretty much will figure out a way to do so.
It's like my house. I take reasonable precautions. There's deadbolt locks on the doors. Lights outside the house. Locks on the windows. I pay a higher rent to live in a safer part of town. It's enough to deter the average thief who is just looking for an easy place to break into.
But if someone was to target me deliberately? Yes, they could probably break in. I'm not living in Fort Knox.
Spree killers are rare. They are scary because they are unpredictable. But there's probably a greater risk of injury or death on a daily basis just getting into a car or crossing the street. To protect myself from the 1% chance of encountering a spree killer, I'd have to alter my life in ways that I don't want to--not leaving home, being afraid all the time, not going places I'd like to go to.
flowerseverywhere
12-28-12, 4:32pm
Steve. I actually agree with you, I don't have a gun. I live carefully but not with paranoia. I just understand those who feel they need to.
Good article. I believe Vermont is a no permit state, as in no permit required to carry. Anyone who wants to can carry. Yet their murder rate is lower than Canada. Fascinating.
On a reciprocal note, I believe Illinois still has an outright ban on concealed carry. The law has been struck down in a higher court, but was in place for 2012. The city of Chicago recorded it's 500th homicide of 2012 just last week. Both the Chief of Police and Mayor Rahm Emmanuel blame the problem on ILLEGAL guns and gang activity. It will make for an interesting case study comparing 2012 with no carry laws to 2013 when citizens are allowed to carry.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.