I wonder what drug Adam Lanza was on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE
Newtown and the Madness of Guns
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Connecticut School Shooting ?
"Let me expand on this old soldiers excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe
that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they
want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kids school.
Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be
seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheeps only response to the
possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just
too hard, so they choose the path of denial.The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the
capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not
ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such
as ours.Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.
They would prefer that he didnt tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the
ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the
sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, Baa. Until the wolf shows up. Then
the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog."
The above was taken from this article, http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm
.
.
.
.
"i surf because, i"m always a better person when i come in"-Andy Irons
.
.
.
NEITHER
Kn.
Agreed.
Stop school shooting by putting more guns in schools. Seems legit…
Guns are the problem. So is the media. So is mental health care. These are all issues that need to be tackled.
There's no place like fromme
I heard on CKNW that there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the USA. Another statistic they cited as that the country that is second place on that list, Yemen,has 40% less and is currently embroiled in a civil war and fighting Al Queda insurgents. Something like 75% of the mass killings (that don't involve war) in recent years have happened in the USA.
I saw an interview last night with the shooters aunt. She said the mother had guns in her home like most other americans to defend themselves. I have read time and time again about the need for Americans to have guns in their home to defend themselves and their family. Is that even a reality?
In Canada, it seems to me that of the relatively few murders that occur, they fall into the following categories: targeted gang/crime related, domestic violence, or killed by someone known to the victim. As far as I know, occurences of random attacks in your own home are virtually non-existant. Is this different in the United States?
No I think he is right, if the media didn't exist neither would mass shootings! Its simple math! ;)
Media is part of the problem but like you say there are many parts to the problem. It seems that everybody is looking for a straight forward solution for a straight forward problem but as far as I am concern neither exist. It took years for this state of affairs to manifest and it will take at least an equal amount to solve it. It will take more than legislation though, I think it will take nothing short of the entire country changing the way they think, act and treat each other.
It is much easier to endlessly blame handguns and ban them. It is harder and takes more work to deal with mental health. People would rather take the easy approach then take the harder one which in this case is dealing with mental health.
Agreed.
Stop school shooting by putting more guns in schools. Seems legit…
Guns are the problem. So is the media. So is mental health care. These are all issues that need to be tackled.
Gun crime (all crime really) on military bases far less than general population: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/is_there_a_lot_of_crime_on_military_bases.html
Do you think this would happen on a military base? Or should I say how far do you think
a crazy gunman would get trying to mass murder on a military base? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/is_there_a_lot_of_crime_on_military_bases.html
Maybe having all the teachers be armed is too far, but any teacher with a proper defense
firearm training having passed a standard shoot/no shoot training course as is taught in
all military and LE training should be a go. Had even two teachers in that school been
armed and trained there would have been a far lower body count. Barring that, have armed
security (properly trained).
"having less guns" is a naive notion. It's like wishing for a nuclear free planet. All
we can do at this point is mitigate. We know making them illegal won't work (look how
well that worked for booze or weed, or any other drug) even the death penalty won't stop
the illegal sale of guns http://www.niqash.org/articles/?id=3117, not producing them
won't work Pakistan hills a good example. Making guns isn't hard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE
Saying "it'll make them harder to get" is BS. Is it any harder to get heroin now than
40 yrs ago? How about weed? Cocaine? There's a lot of money spent trying to stop that
trade and a lot of people dying because of it, how many will die if we did that? Or how
much money would it take?
.
.
.
.
"i surf because, i"m always a better person when i come in"-Andy Irons
.
.
.
Saying "it'll make them harder to get" is BS. Is it any harder to get heroin now than
40 yrs ago? How about weed? Cocaine? There's a lot of money spent trying to stop that
trade and a lot of people dying because of it, how many will die if we did that? Or how
much money would it take?
I was having this discussion yesterday with some family. No, if there is stronger control on how one can legally acquire firearms there will still be a big black market for them. The thing is it does make a barrier to entry for those that aren't in the know on ow to acquire them. The reality is these gunmen are mostly mentally unusable people with poor social connections, not gang bangers with easy access to the black market.
Comparing it to drugs I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for heroin. Sure I could go to some of the less savory areas of town and ask around but I would be out of my element and would stand out. Same thing for many of these shooters if they were looking for guns in the black market. It's a barrier to many, not all, but at least a percentage.
For the record. I'm not for a ban on guns but I am on a more stringent licensing and acquisition system.
If I snapped today I wouldn't be able to get a gun on the way to a school from Walmart. That is worth something at least. Ya you can get guns but it's much harder in Canada. Firearm market isn't quite the same as the drug market.
Gun crime (all crime really) on military bases far less than general population: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/is_there_a_lot_of_crime_on_military_bases.html
Do you think this would happen on a military base? Or should I say how far do you think
a crazy gunman would get trying to mass murder on a military base? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/11/is_there_a_lot_of_crime_on_military_bases.htmlMaybe having all the teachers be armed is too far, but any teacher with a proper defense
firearm training having passed a standard shoot/no shoot training course as is taught in
all military and LE training should be a go. Had even two teachers in that school been
armed and trained there would have been a far lower body count. Barring that, have armed
security (properly trained)."having less guns" is a naive notion. It's like wishing for a nuclear free planet. All
we can do at this point is mitigate. We know making them illegal won't work (look how
well that worked for booze or weed, or any other drug) even the death penalty won't stop
the illegal sale of guns http://www.niqash.org/articles/?id=3117, not producing them
won't work Pakistan hills a good example. Making guns isn't hard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGESaying "it'll make them harder to get" is BS. Is it any harder to get heroin now than
40 yrs ago? How about weed? Cocaine? There's a lot of money spent trying to stop that
trade and a lot of people dying because of it, how many will die if we did that? Or how
much money would it take?
Your argument is that gun crime on military bases (secured facilities, with people not only armed, but well screened and with available mental and physical health resources) is low and so teachers (a stressful job dealing with stressful people that aren't as well screened as the military/police and with varying degrees of mental and physical health resources) should be permitted to carry guns? around kids? this comparison is just silly…
If you look closely at my post, I don't actually say anything about "having less guns". You clearly haven't seen my point and have gone off on a tangent, so I'll be more clear. Putting guns in the hands of TEACHERS (read: non-military, poorly trained, poorly screened, stressed out) is a terrible idea. Should teachers receive identical training, screening, mental and physical examination (and held to the same standard) and care, this may make more sense. Until then, all you're doing is putting guns in a place full of kids. Even with your standard "shoot/no shoot training course", you are just asking for trouble putting kids in a room with a gun.
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you should have picked a different post to respond to. All I stated was that guns are a problem (to clarify, I mean for the US). This is an obvious truth. I don't claim to have the solution to the problem, just that it is one. I also indicated that the media and the mental health resources are problems and nor do I have the answers for those.
There's no place like fromme
this is an interesting read, from a mother of a son with mental illness:
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.ca/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
Your argument is that gun crime on military bases (secured facilities, with people not only armed, but well screened and with available mental and physical health resources) is low and so teachers (a stressful job dealing with stressful people that aren't as well screened as the military/police and with varying degrees of mental and physical health resources) should be permitted to carry guns? around kids? this comparison is just silly…
If you look closely at my post, I don't actually say anything about "having less guns". You clearly haven't seen my point and have gone off on a tangent, so I'll be more clear. Putting guns in the hands of TEACHERS (read: non-military, poorly trained, poorly screened, stressed out) is a terrible idea. Should teachers receive identical training, screening, mental and physical examination (and held to the same standard) and care, this may make more sense. Until then, all you're doing is putting guns in a place full of kids. Even with your standard "shoot/no shoot training course", you are just asking for trouble putting kids in a room with a gun.
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you should have picked a different post to respond to. All I stated was that guns are a problem (to clarify, I mean for the US). This is an obvious truth. I don't claim to have the solution to the problem, just that it is one. I also indicated that the media and the mental health resources are problems and nor do I have the answers for those.
Didn't know this was a one-on-one conversation. Some of my post covers other things that
were said or inferred in this thread. Comments that make me think the poster thinks that
somehow getting rid of all guns or even a small percentage is feasible. I was just pointing
out that it isn't.
Maybe you need to read what I said:
Maybe having all the teachers be armed is too far, but any teacher with a proper defense
firearm training having passed a standard shoot/no shoot training course as is taught in
all military and LE training should be a go. Had even two teachers in that school been
armed and trained there would have been a far lower body count. Barring that, have armed
security (properly trained).
-If you had, you would see that I said having all teachers is too far.
-A teacher with a proper defense course (firearm) and other basic firearm shoot/no shoot
training like I took in the military (talking a couple weeks here). Then fine.
-Otherwise a properly trained armed security person would be good.
FYI- there's not a big screening process for basic grunt military personnel. Also, while
there is free healthcare, the mental health aspect is pretty much swept under the rug.
Also, there's stigma for anyone in the military (sure the cops are the same) for someone
looking for mental health care.
.
.
.
.
"i surf because, i"m always a better person when i come in"-Andy Irons
.
.
.
Didn't know this was a one-on-one conversation. Some of my post covers other things that
were said or inferred in this thread. Comments that make me think the poster thinks that
somehow getting rid of all guns or even a small percentage is feasible. I was just pointing
out that it isn't.
i really don't recall anyone on the pro gun control side of the debate saying or inferring that getting rid of all guns or even a small percentage is feasible. it seems to me that most opinions seem to be for continuing to allow guns but just with great degrees of control than what currently exists.
with some of your comparisons and counter arguments i get the impression that you have this perceived bias that any anti-gun sentiment means an outright banning of guns altogether. i realize i may be incorrect in that interpretation, but i feel that's a significant part of the message you're sending out and it makes it a challenge to consider your side of the debate seriously.
part of the challenge is that there's two significant and seprate issues going on that are unfortunately linked together - mental illness and gun control.
what also throws a wrench into this whole this is the idea of what is causing the seemingly large increase in behaviour issues amongst children these days?. is it just that we're more aware of these issues and they're reported/publcized more now than a few decades ago? is it environmental problem (chemicals in our environment) that affecting the fetal and infant neurological development of these kids? is it a genetic issue? i think until we can find answers for the underlying causes of these mental/neurological issues and how to deal with them that it makes sense to protect ourselves when it comes to the production, distribution and public consumption of highly effective killing tools.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Zebra is correct. Another tragedy and it degrades to another NBR gun control circle jerk. With all that's left to be decided is who eats the cookie.
Did they ever mention the name of the school custodian? Who went from room to room to make sure the class room doors where locked while no clue where the shooter was going next?
I agree that if we got rid of all the guns it would be a safer world for the physically gifted people of the world. But guns are the great equalizer. They can stop big people from taking advantage of weaker people. But that aside, we will never get rid of guns, so arguing that as an option is a red hearing.
Hmmm. The profile for these disturbed mass murders is this:
Socially misadjusted middle class white kids that don't fit in. Suicidal with severe anger problems. Not to ignore the larger issues of bullying, mental health care, breakdown of the community, reliance on drugs, and so on…. you cannot deny that these killers are the "weaker people". Without the power of concealable handguns and assault rifles, these namby pambys wouldn't be a threat to anyone. These kids are rejects: non-masculine, pushed around by the world. GUNS give the weak the power to lash out at the world that has treated them so poorly.
We do not live in the wild west. That's a good thing…. I don't want to live in an everyman for himself, lawless, free for all. I want to live in a civilized society. If that means sacrificing Dirty Harry fantasies, it's worth it.
The way I see it, gun "control" will only work to prevent a small portion of killings
that occur in the USA.
So gun control only prevents "a small portion" of unneeded murders. Exactly how many killings does gun control need to prevent?
Gun control will not change the world over night. Guns are firmly entrenched in american culture, and that dangerous culture will not go away in a week or a year. It was not that long ago that tobacco was normal. Doctors would reccomend their favorite brand of smokes, and you could light up in work. 30-40 years later, it is seem as a terrible lifestyle choice, smokers shunned, and tobacco use banned in public space. It was not that long ago, that drunk driving was just what everybody did. Again, 30-40 years, and we have seen a drastic change. Are these problems gone? Of course not, but they are getter better, year by year.
Forum jump:
