Another school shooting today

[vckempson]

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY FEEL ABOUT GUNS? They are useless for protection, it makes a bad situation worse, no one needs one anymore for hunting, supermarkets are everywhere....THE ONLY USE FOR A GUN IS AS A TOY, really they are just fun toys....to play with, go target shooting, hunting for fun(not survival) or overall having fun...Everyone says that guns aren't toys, but really, 99.9999% of the time(police & military are that .00001%) that is exactly what they are used as, Toys

We don't need an amendment to protect toys

Why don't you tell us what you really think, Ride.

Sadly, you are probably more right than wrong. However, I think your view is sheltered and one sided based on living in suburban Long Island. Much of the US lives a far distance from any law enforcement. We're not talking response times in minutes but an hour or more They depend on their own self determinination to protect themselves, their families and their property from those that would do them harm. The level of gun ownership in those situations is likely north of 90% and they aren't kept as toys but as necessities.

 

[easyrider]

BUT for the 'not going to happen' situation, If i have a gun and the criminal has a gun he pulls it, i pull mine, we are both dead...If just i have a gun, he runs(i don't need a gun to scare off the traditional Coward criminal), if just he has a gun, my 6'3 235lbs body and memories of my(haha)high school football days, i'm charging at the MF and he's running off scared after a couple hits, i may end up killing him, but most people don't need a gun for that...In the one situation where i pulled a gun, all it did was end up with TWO people dead instead of NONE, it took a very easy to handle situation and put blood on everyone's hands

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I REALLY FEEL ABOUT GUNS? They are useless for protection, it makes a bad situation worse, no one needs one anymore for hunting, supermarkets are everywhere....THE ONLY USE FOR A GUN IS AS A TOY, really they are just fun toys....to play with, go target shooting, hunting for fun(not survival) or overall having fun...Everyone says that guns aren't toys, but really, 99.9999% of the time(police & military are that .00001%) that is exactly what they are used as, Toys

We don't need an amendment to protect toys

Ride, this is where training comes in. Out in public the usual senario is the bad guy has the drop on you and you comply and the bad guy goes away. Each situation is different depending on where you meet the bad guy and what the bad guy is armed with. Most often it will be a knife or small caliber handgun. This type of crime has a smaller percentage of people being killed.

When the bad guy breaks into your house its a different story. You will usually have time to protect yourself if your prepared. In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home. Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood.

Sure the odds are that it will never be a problem for most but when it is a problem your choice is to comply and maybe die or if your prepared you can save your self and family.

Bill

 

[Ridewithme38]

In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home. Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood.

Bill

This is where we differ, i don't believe that a home invasion equals rape and murder/torture.... 99.999% its just some druggy/homeless/Kid that wants to rip some things off of an empty house so they can pawn it for drugs/food/drugs, if they see someone home they'll run off...I'm not going to say it never happens, but from what i've read in the very very few cases this has happened, it's usually someone you know...an unarmed, ex husband, ex boyfriend, friend of a friend, etc. that you invite in or pushed in through a door you were holding closed(because you unlocked it to talk to them) With those situations, there is no way you are going to have a chance to go into the closet, unlock the safe load the gun and fire.....So a gun doesn't help in those cases...

IMO, beyond the cases i sited above (exboyfriend, exhusband, friend of friend) you are taking horror movie plots and convincing yourself that they are real life....it's just not realistic and almost silly to plan for...Otherwise, i should start avoiding sleeping, Freddie Kruger might get me!

I think we differ also in our view of America and the people of America....People are generally good and WANT to do the 'right' thing, if you talk to most people in jail you will see their crimes were more of necessity then of 'evil'...this isn't true for everyone, some people are just misguided and don't understand 'right' from 'wrong' but generally people are good and want to do good...This is why my general belief is that America is a pretty damn safe place

 

[pianodinosaur]

I agree, the whole military taking over point is pretty silly overall.

I do however recall some very serious conditions post katrina in new orleans...and you can see from there how few police and military personnel were available to help the common citizen.

I will make one final request to keep this civil and without the growing "snottyness" im picking up in many of these posts.



If you cant talk about an issue like an adult without getting angry at the person who disagrees with you...dont post here.

As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population. I just want to keep it that way. The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them. Then the military may have no problem killing their own people. This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today. The second amendment is hardly obsolete. I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.

 

[Ridewithme38]

As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population. I just want to keep it that way. The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them. Then the military may have no problem killing their own people. This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today. The second amendment is hardly obsolete. I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.

The freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech are what has always kept this nation free, now with the internet, that freedom is getting strong and stronger everyday....Without the First amendment the 2nd means nothing...Because unless you can speak freely/ print/publish dissent, you can never build up the immense crowd needed to act upon that dissent...If you can't assemble, it IS just you against the world

I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!

 

[siesta]

I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!

well you better get ready for a fight... bc guns arent the only thing they are coming for. There is a big movement now to push for less violence in music, movies, television. Everyone who over the years pushing for 1st amendment restrictions are in full swing as well.

Reminds me of book burnings. "the content is dangerous to our minds, protect society!"

To all the parents concerned about the violent movies, music, games, fast food, soda pop.... If your concerned take away their playstation, put parental controls on tv and internet, and dont buy them mcdonalds! Last time i checked kids didnt rent R rated movies and take themselves to the fast food drive-thru.

Rant over.

 

[easyrider]

This is where we differ, i don't believe that a home invasion equals rape and murder/torture.... 99.999% its just some druggy/homeless/Kid that wants to rip some things off of an empty house so they can pawn it for drugs/food/drugs, if they see someone home they'll run off...I'm not going to say it never happens, but from what i've read in the very very few cases this has happened, it's usually someone you know...an unarmed, ex husband, ex boyfriend, friend of a friend, etc. that you invite in or pushed in through a door you were holding closed(because you unlocked it to talk to them) With those situations, there is no way you are going to have a chance to go into the closet, unlock the safe load the gun and fire.....So a gun doesn't help in those cases...

IMO, beyond the cases i sited above (exboyfriend, exhusband, friend of friend) you are taking horror movie plots and convincing yourself that they are real life....it's just not realistic and almost silly to plan for...Otherwise, i should start avoiding sleeping, Freddie Kruger might get me!

I think we differ also in our view of America and the people of America....People are generally good and WANT to do the 'right' thing, if you talk to most people in jail you will see their crimes were more of necessity then of 'evil'...this isn't true for everyone, some people are just misguided and don't understand 'right' from 'wrong' but generally people are good and want to do good...This is why my general belief is that America is a pretty damn safe place

There is a huge difference between home invasion and burglary. The number of bad guys caught and released from prison is about 1% of the population. The number of bad guys not caught has to be at least twice that.

AND this doesnt even include all the drug addicts or other lunatics.

I do have to agree with you on people in general. Most are good.

Bill
___________________________________________________

""""Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping.[1] Home invasion is generally an unauthorized and forceful entry into a dwelling.

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.[16] Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7] Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or on parole.[4] In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 – about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[3][4][11]
In addition, there were 70,792 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2010 """

 

[pianodinosaur]

The freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech are what has always kept this nation free, now with the internet, that freedom is getting strong and stronger everyday....Without the First amendment the 2nd means nothing...Because unless you can speak freely/ print/publish dissent, you can never build up the immense crowd needed to act upon that dissent...If you can't assemble, it IS just you against the world

I would fight against major changes to our freedom of speech and THAT i would give my life to defend!

I would argue that without the second amendment, the first amendment cannot be protected. If you are willing to fight to preserve the first amendment, how are you prepared to do so? I am also willing to fight to preserve the first amendment. That is precisely why we need the second amendment.

 

[Carolinian]

As long as our military takes an oath to defend the constitution, which happens to include the second amendment, I would agree that it is very unlikely that our government would wage war on it's own population. I just want to keep it that way. The problem is that all too often tyrants have the military swear an oath of loyalty to them. Then the military may have no problem killing their own people. This happened under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and is currently taking place all over the Middle East today. The second amendment is hardly obsolete. I am certain there are many people of goodwill who would agree that the second amendment is what keeps this country free.

Those tyrants you mention also took away citizens gun rights early in their regimes. Any politician who wants to disarm the population has to be looked at as a potential tyrant.

 

[geoand]

Absolutely. The combined firepower of the civilian American people is far greater than that of the military. The US military would be so heavily out numbered and out gunned, that it would be no contest. We have more guns in our community than most military divisions. We also have far more ammunition. The average infantry soldier has one gun. My average neighbor has about 10 guns. Most of my neighbors, including myself, are veterans.

I disagree completely. Two big flaws in this is that the small arms in the civilian population is nothing compared to the weaponry available to the military. The second flaw is that one side has a command structure and the other side doesn't.

 

[Carolinian]

Two things happen with criminals in a gun control society.

The first is that criminals still have avenues to get guns, although they become more expensive and harder to get. The citizen does not. So the criminal is always going to have the advantage.

The second is that for petty crimes and spur of the moment crimes, criminals turn to other weapons, particularly knives. If you have been reading the British press over the last few years, as I have for decades, you would be reading stories about a serious rash of knife violence over the past few years. The Communist Chinese have been dealing recently with a rash of mass stabbings of students in their schools. If getting a gun becomes more difficult, those inclined to violence or crime will simply turn to a different weapon.

If I am having to defend myself, I would rather it be gun to gun where I can put some distance between myself and a criminal than knife to knife.

Ride, this is where training comes in. Out in public the usual senario is the bad guy has the drop on you and you comply and the bad guy goes away. Each situation is different depending on where you meet the bad guy and what the bad guy is armed with. Most often it will be a knife or small caliber handgun. This type of crime has a smaller percentage of people being killed.

When the bad guy breaks into your house its a different story. You will usually have time to protect yourself if your prepared. In home invasions often time the bad guy is there to harm you or someone else living in that home. Having a hand gun and a little training is a better way of eliminating this threat than trying to muscle it through no matter how tough you are. Robbery is the least of your problems with these types of bad guys. Rape and torture resulting in death for the bad guys entertainment has happened often enough with out any thing being stolen. This kind of crap can happen any where in any neighborhood.

Sure the odds are that it will never be a problem for most but when it is a problem your choice is to comply and maybe die or if your prepared you can save your self and family.

Bill

 

[Carolinian]

I disagree completely. Two big flaws in this is that the small arms in the civilian population is nothing compared to the weaponry available to the military. The second flaw is that one side has a command structure and the other side doesn't.

Funny, that is probably how George III had it figured, too. Or Assad in Syria, or Gaddhafi.

 

[Carolinian]

David Hemenway, Harvard School of Public Health and author of "Private Guns, Public Health", makes a good point re: the knife v. gun comparison:

It’s so incredible that on the same day we had this horrific shooting in an elementary school, a guy in China [wielding a knife] tried to kill lots of elementary school students. And nobody died. Why? Because they have fewer mental health problems? No. It’s the access to guns. Guns make interactions much more lethal.

Well, no, it is largely the skill of the bad guy in using his weapon of choice. Someone skillful with a knife can do more damage than someone clumsy with a gun.

And it is sad that institutions like a school of public health can get so overtly politicized as this dude obviously is.

 

[Beefnot]

If getting a gun becomes more difficult, those inclined to violence or crime will simply turn to a different weapon.

No dispute from me there. But they can inflict a lot less carnage in a short amount of time than they can with assault rifles with high capacity clips.

 

[siesta]

Two things happen with criminals in a gun control society.

The first is that criminals still have avenues to get guns, although they become more expensive and harder to get.

yes, this was true when we banned alcohol during prohibition, and currently the war on drugs. Our laws have managed to create billion dollar underground industries making criminals rich, all the while alcohol was, and drugs are, still available everywhere for people willing to break the law. Im pretty sure we'd accomplish similair results with a "gun control society" too.

And before anyone says "we cant make guns like drugs", first yes people can, second there are already millions of guns on black market, and third all the drugs in this country werent made here they were smuggled in.

If you doubt me, check this out, happened in China where guns are banned completely.

"In early 2007, a man in northeast China killed five family members and neighbors in a rampage with a homemade pistol."

"Possessing a single gun can yield a three-year prison sentence, while perpetrators of gun crimes are often executed."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LF24Ad02.html

Look, a country with a complete gun ban punishable by death still has mass shootings!

 

[Carolinian]

I don't know. Why don't you ask the North Vietnamese or the insurgents in Afghanistan? They did pretty good against the full might and force of the US military.

But in answer to your question, yes. When you can't tell friend from foe, any type of gun or weapon will do. You need look no further than IED's to see the answer there. In any type of urban warfare, the big mighty military weapons go right out the window.

. . . and in Afghanistan, they defeated the Soviet military.

There have even been cases of ad hoc citizen forces with a hodge podge of weapons defeating modern military forces in battlefield confrontations.

One was on the southern front in the war between India and Hyderabad in 1948. Hyderabad, the largest of India's princely states, exercised its option to resume independence when the British colonial era ended, and maintained that independence under rule by its Nizam for a year until India invaded. The Nizam put all of his regular military forces on the northeastern and northwestern fronts where the Indians had deployed armour. The southern front was defended entirely by razakars, citizen volunteers who brought whatever weapons they had, in some cases only swords and muzzle-loading muskets. All the Hyderabad government was able to provide to the razakars was a limited number of pre-WWI military rifles. They faced a full division of modern Indian infantry. Yet when the war ended, on the southern front, the Hyderabad razakars were several miles inside Indian territory pursuing the retreating Indian infantry. (On one of the other fronts, the Hyderabad military did well, using favorable defensive terrain, well placed artillery, and Indian overconfidence to halt an Indian armored advance and inflict serious losses on them, but the third front offered no geographical advantages and the Indian tanks were able to push through to capture the Hyderabad capital and win the war)

Another happened at the start of the civil war in Yemen in 1962. The military overthrew the King and declared a republic, but the king escaped to interior and rallied the tribes to his support. The army with all of its modern weapons and training was routed in its first major battle by ad hoc forces of the King, which were armed with a mixed bag of light weapons, essentially whatever his supporters had handy, and again including some armed with swords, cavalry lances, and single shot muskets. The turning point in the battle came with a cavalry charge with lances by the royalist horsemen against modern infantry untrained in how to deal with cavalry (in the 19th century, they would have known how to form squares to break up a cavalry charge) (after the initial batlle, Saudi and British military supplies poured in for the royalists, evening out the levels of armament during the remaining 8 years of the civil war).

The point is, that motivated citizens with light weapons can sometimes handle modern military even in battlefield situations, but even more so in guerilla situations.

 

[geoand]

Funny, that is probably how George III had it figured, too. Or Assad in Syria, or Gaddhafi.

Conjecture on your part. Examples you provide have no bearing upon the scenario. The other side in your examples have been supplied with tactical weapons and info. What side do you think would be providing support - Britain, Russia, China, ???

Facts are that our military is the best and has the best trained troops. Has the best equipment. Has the best command structure.

Facts are that most American gun owners do not have the training, skills, etc to effectively battle against American military. As I have stated long before you came into this discussion, I believe that our military will never rise against US population. The more likely scenario is that some local hotheads think that the only way to get there way is to go on the attack themselves. This would be handled by leo agencies and quite effectively.

All this talk about all the gun owners in America having the ability to combat our armed forces is really just bluster and has no basis in reality.

 

[geoand]

I don't know. Why don't you ask the North Vietnamese or the insurgents in Afghanistan? They did pretty good against the full might and force of the US military.

I think you forget the history with the conflict in Viet Nam. We never sent our military there to win that war. It was a political thing. The N Vietnamese were well trained and had decades of combat experience.

I have already expressed my thoughts on the situation with Afghanistan. Our military has the decency not to shoot at non combatants even if the insurgents are using them as shields. Even here there is a lot of politics that hamper what our military can do. Even here, the insurgents are well trained with decades of combat experience.

The full might and force were never used in Vietnam or in Afghanistan.

I will repeat myself. It won't be the military rising against the American people. If conflict does occur, it will be the other way around and it will be subdued by leo agencies.

 

[Carolinian]

As long as the US remains a democracy, your analysis is probably correct. But if we have a Hugo Chavez style tyranny creeping in and a rebellion against it, then the military might split, as the Libyan and Syrian militaries have. That would be an entirely different situation.

Conjecture on your part. Examples you provide have no bearing upon the scenario. The other side in your examples have been supplied with tactical weapons and info. What side do you think would be providing support - Britain, Russia, China, ???

Facts are that our military is the best and has the best trained troops. Has the best equipment. Has the best command structure.

Facts are that most American gun owners do not have the training, skills, etc to effectively battle against American military. As I have stated long before you came into this discussion, I believe that our military will never rise against US population. The more likely scenario is that some local hotheads think that the only way to get there way is to go on the attack themselves. This would be handled by leo agencies and quite effectively.

All this talk about all the gun owners in America having the ability to combat our armed forces is really just bluster and has no basis in reality.

 

[geoand]

As long as the US remains a democracy, your analysis is probably correct. But if we have a Hugo Chavez style tyranny creeping in and a rebellion against it, then the military might split, as the Libyan and Syrian militaries have. That would be an entirely different situation.

I have full faith in our form of government. The American people would never allow anything such as Hugo Chavez.

What I believe is that you and I or anyone else and I can have a full on face to face disagreement about how things are and what should be done, but you and I know that Hugo ain't happening and no matter what our differences we will take the necessary action to make sure that it doesn't.

 

[siesta]

I have full faith in our form of government.

Im glad you do, but read what happened just today, regarding the NDAA for fiscal year 2013.


WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

Here is what the NDAA for fiscal year looked like for 2012:

"On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

 

[geoand]

Im glad you do, but read what happened just today, regarding the NDAA for fiscal year 2013.


WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

Here is what the NDAA for fiscal year looked like for 2012:

"On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa

I think you should quote the entire bill for a better understanding of intent of the provision etc.

In addition, Congress is only one branch of the government. I will wait to see how it all settles out.

Doesn't shake my faith in our form of government in the least.

 

[Carolinian]

I have full faith in our form of government. The American people would never allow anything such as Hugo Chavez.

What I believe is that you and I or anyone else and I can have a full on face to face disagreement about how things are and what should be done, but you and I know that Hugo ain't happening and no matter what our differences we will take the necessary action to make sure that it doesn't.

If you talked to Germans in 1925, eight years before Hitler happened, no one would have believed it could happen there, but it did. And you have to remember that one of the first things that Hitler did was take away citizens gun rights.

 

[dougp26364]

A couple of things I'll add, then I'll likely not post on this hot topic.

1. It's been largely left out of the media that the reason the Mall gunman of recent days only killed two people before killing himself is that he was confronted by a young man with a conceal/carry permit who had drawn down on him. He didn't fire because he was aware of people behind the shooter and he was accountable for where his bullets might travel. The shooter elected to shoot himself when confronted.

2. You think maybe something as simple as a good trigger lock would would have prevented this shooting? The shooters mother was NOT a responsible gun owner. The child had issues and she took him to the shooting range, then failed to secure her guns. She paid with her life for that mistake and others paid with the lives of their children and loved ones.

3. Perhaps making a gun safety class mandatory before one can purchase a weapon might be in order. If it were a national program one could take the course, have their certificate registered in a national registration bank and the gun shops would be required to verify that buyer had completed the safety course. No it won't stop stupidity but it might make new owners aware of steps that need to be taken to secure their firearms.

4. Mandatory trigger locks with every weapon sold. That way they can't say they forgot to buy one or couldn't afford one or the store didn't have one. It would come with the gun. Of course, seat belts come with the car. It won't force everyone to use one but it might be a step in the right direction.

Making guns illegal isn't likely to work. Prohibition didn't work. Cocaine, Heroine, Meth and all forms of other narcotics are routinely bought on the streets. I doubt a consititional ammendment will work on gun control. Education and tweeking a few laws/regulations should be a starting point.

 

[CarolF]

All countries with greater freedom than the US, have gun regulations which are categorised as restricted, except for Belgium which is considered permissive.

If all those countries have greater freedom and much less crime, why not discuss what others are doing right?? I don't see the point in comparing the US to developing countries.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c..._policy/10,31,50,69,136,178,177,65,128,125,18

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...omicides/10,18,50,65,71,128,177,178,31,125,69