School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

That's beside the point (strawman argument). What is relevant is whether or not you'd think I was glorifying suicide vests.

Looks like you are the one using a strawman argument now.

Quote:

What is your evidence that there are more crazy people in the US than in other countries?

Never said I had any. but given that a mass shooting is conducted by someone who is crazy, that issue should be addressed to prevent future mass shootings.

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Registering and tracking all firearms would not be about taking guns way at all. Gun regulation does not mean removal.

"Gun confiscation is not the reason for gun registration" was the sell used by the Canadian Liberal federal government back in the nineties when they introduced the implementation the Long Gun Registry (recently shut down*).

Back in 2006, Paul Martin was a Liberal running in the federal election for Canadian Prime Minister (he lost). One of his election promises was the wholesale confiscation of otherwise legally owned restricted (registered) firearms in the province of Ontario (specifically Toronto IIRC).

Canadians firearm owners learned not to trust politicians who claim registration will not lead to confiscation...

*The primary reason for the LGR being killed was that after many years of being in force, it was studied and shown to be a useless and ineffective wasteful use of resources. They determined that the registration of Long Guns had no effect on reducing the criminal use of firearms in Canada.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Of course not. As Jefferson himself noted, the loss of lives in the persuit of liberty is to be expected and it must be refreshed by the blood of patriots...

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Especially 6 year old patriots giving their lives so folks like you can be "avid shooters" - just like the guys at Virginia Tech, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Newtown were.

Their blood is on your hands.

Now THAT is a funny argument. I must say it is the first time someone has accused me of being the cause of a mass murder. So in your eyes, the upbringing of these disturbed individuals and their mental illness was not the problem, but instead the guy that fights for his right to take his gun to the range and have a weapon for self defense is what caused the mass murders. You sir, are ridiculous.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Unless all Americans have the attitude you have and all are prepared for armed or other attack, those who want to commit massacres will find places where others do not have a gun to fight back. Considering the number of guns and gun owners in the USA, they never seem to be where a massacre is taking place to stop them.

FWIW, we would have been committing a felony had we been in the school with our weapon.

[IDB87]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

FWIW, we would have been committing a felony had we been in the school with our weapon.

Should it be a misdemeanor? Perhaps a fine?

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate, or are you just pointing out the penalty?

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You only need to be 18 to buy a rifle.

The news report I read said that the guy wasn't old enough under Connecticut law to legally possess hand guns.

Under Canadian law, they differentiate between 'ownership' (buying a firearm) and 'possession'. I'm not sure whether it works the same or not in the States...

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by IDB87

Should it be a misdemeanor? Perhaps a fine?

Do you think it is appropriate or inappropriate, or are you just pointing out the penalty?

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause? Obviously the law of no guns in schools does not deter criminals, so what purpose does it serve?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Autolite

The news report I read said that the guy wasn't old enough under Connecticut law to legally possess hand guns.

Under Canadian law, they differentiate between 'ownership' (buying a firearm) and 'possession'. I'm not sure whether it works the same or not in the States...

Again, depends on the state. Some states someone over 21 can purchase someone under 21 a handgun to possess and that is perfectly legal. Pretty silly, I know.

[Redtail]

Does anyone know if the police or any of the news agencies retracted or further explained the reports of a second shooter? I've been Googling but haven't been able to find any thing beyond conspiracy theory crap.

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Indeed. Canada has fewer gun deaths per capita. But why ?

Indeed, Mexico has much tighter gun control restrictions than Canada and a murder per capita rate of five times that of the United States.

Perhaps there are factors other than gun control that might account for these discrepancies...

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Now THAT is a funny argument. I must say it is the first time someone has accused me of being the cause of a mass murder. So in your eyes, the upbringing of these disturbed individuals and their mental illness was not the problem, but instead the guy that fights for his right to take his gun to the range and have a weapon for self defense is what caused the mass murders. You sir, are ridiculous.

Similarly if you ever use air travel you were indirectly responsible for 9/11.

[rwguinn]

One of the things a lot of people are missing is the obvious and outrageous anger this idiot had--most victims were shot from 8 to as many as 11 times.
Turn that anger loose with a machetti, hammer, or other weapon and the carnage would still be outrageous, although more succeptable to mass attack on defense...

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Never said I had any. but given that a mass shooting is conducted by someone who is crazy, that issue should be addressed to prevent future mass shootings.

A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

One of the things a lot of people are missing is the obvious and outrageous anger this idiot had--most victims were shot from 8 to as many as 11 times.
Turn that anger loose with a machetti, hammer, or other weapon and the carnage would still be outrageous, although more succeptable to mass attack on defense...

So, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples, then, from countries where guns are controlled more tightly?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?

Gun bans only address one part. Which part should we focus on?

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples, then, from countries where guns are controlled more tightly?

The trouble with a discussion of reducing gun deaths in the context of mass killings and spree killings is that they make up such a tiny fraction of gun related homicides that, even if we eliminated all of them it would not change the homicide rate in the US by much at all.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Does anyone know if the police or any of the news agencies retracted or further explained the reports of a second shooter? I've been Googling but haven't been able to find any thing beyond conspiracy theory crap.

"Fog of war" - Often more than one shooter is claimed in these cases.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

No, you are confused here. If I must apply for a permit, then it is no longer a right. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate a need. In the US it is the state's burden to demonstrate that you are not allowed to own a gun, the presumptive being that you are. You are not asking for the right to own a gun, you are giving the state opportunity to demonstrate that you should not have one. They are unable to say "no" without demonstrating that you are a danger.

ETA; The background check must be completed within a definite time window. If the government fails to respond within 7 days (I believe) to the request, the transfer takes place. A transfer is not a "license".

In the UK anyone can apply and it is up to the police to argue the case if they think that person is not suitable. The police have to give reasons for a lack of suitability and there is an appeal system to the courts if an applicant feels the police were wrong to refuse. The UK police cannot say no unless the applicant is a danger either.

We have the right to a gun as much as you do, the conditions are different, just as different US states have different conditions, thats all.

Sorry, you are the confused one.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples, then, from countries where guns are controlled more tightly?

Actually if you type in "Machete mass murder" into google tons of stories come up.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?

Given that there is a high percentage of the population that does the right thing with guns, it would better satisfy all parties to focus on the mental illness as opposed to taking rights away from law abiding citizens.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

FWIW, we would have been committing a felony had we been in the school with our weapon.

So a parent with a carry permit aware their child is in a school with a gun madman would think, better not go in

What use are all these armed Americans? I hear that a lot about the police, the argument I have to defend myself as they can take time to get to me. That appears to apply to all you as well.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Nessie

So a parent with a carry permit aware their child is in a school with a gun madman would think, better not go in

What use are all these armed Americans? I hear that a lot about the police, the argument I have to defend myself as they can take time to get to me. That appears to apply to all you as well.

I was thinking more along the lines of a teacher or faculty member being armed. But yes I think the law is silly, because it only benefits the criminals. If they want to go on a shooting rampage, rest assured no one inside of a school will be able to defend themselves.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

In the UK anyone can apply and it is up to the police to argue the case if they think that person is not suitable. The police have to give reasons for a lack of suitability and there is an appeal system to the courts if an applicant feels the police were wrong to refuse. The UK police cannot say no unless the applicant is a danger either.

We have the right to a gun as much as you do, the conditions are different, just as different US states have different conditions, thats all.

Sorry, you are the confused one.

I'm sorry, I don't actually know what the law is in the UK outside of what's been stated on these forums (forae?). It has been stated and restated that one must provide a "legitimate reason" for wanting to own a gun, "legitimate" being hunting, or sport, but not ever ever self defense. Is this not true? I was under the impression that there is a spot on the application where one must justify his desire for a license? Is that not the case?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause?

You don't understand what harm it does? But it's obvious! It gets certain people's panties in a bunch. Don't you realize how traumatizing it is to have bunched-up panties? Heartless bastard.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Again comes the implication of some deranged paranoia that myself and other prepared gun owners have. We don't live in fear whatsoever. We don't stay up at night listening for strange sounds, and we aren't fearful of home invasions. We are well aware of the rarity of such an occasion, as we are also aware of the consequences that could possibly come from not being prepared for such a rare occurrence. We have taken what we believe are necessary precautions, and that's it. Other then that, we live as normally as any other individual.

Fair enough.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Autolite

Indeed, Mexico has much tighter gun control restrictions than Canada and a murder per capita rate of five times that of the United States.

Perhaps there are factors other than gun control that might account for these discrepancies...

The peacefulness of a country is the main factor.

Canada (30.8 guns per 100 people) is a more peaceful country than the USA (88.8 per 100 peopel) not so, Mexico (15.4 per 100 peopel) has a war ongoing. In the same way Switzerland with tons of guns per head (47.5 per 100 people) is a peaceful country compared to South Africa with fewer guns per head (17.03 per 100). Japan (0.6 per 100 people) has way less crime than England & Wales (6.2 per 100 people) and is generally regarded as a safer, more peaceful place.

Sorry Americans, you are not very peaceful and you have tons of guns.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I am not familiar with firearms.

Lets suggest that this shooter was reasonably proficient with this rifle and could reload in 3 seconds.

How much time does it take for a person to say leap out from behind a desk and tackle a reloading shooter to the floor?

I'd probably stay hidden, myself, rather than tackle a person with a gun.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

That's beside the point (strawman argument).

That's not what a strawman is.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

No, you are confused here. If I must apply for a permit, then it is no longer a right. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate a need.

Not necessarily the need but the ability.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Sorry Americans, you are not very peaceful and you have tons of guns.

This is what I've been saying. America is a considerably more violent place overall, compared to UK/EU. It is not BECAUSE of guns, though (or at least, not demonstrably so).

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'd probably stay hidden, myself, rather than tackle a person with a gun.

Him not being familiar with firearms is a contributing factor to his "Tackle" fantasy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Personally, I don't see the big deal about a concealed carry permit holder carrying into a school with a holstered weapon. I know that sounds outrageous, but what harm does it cause? Obviously the law of no guns in schools does not deter criminals, so what purpose does it serve?

Well, personally I have no problem with home defense, hunting or gallery shooting. But seeing how irrational people become over trivial stuff, say, the price of a towel at Wal-Mart, I'd rather them not having the option to shoot me dead over a disagreement. And these people aren't insane. Just temporarily losing their rationality. At least if they only have theirs fists and teeth I might live.

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Self defense seems a pretty plausible reason to me. Considering that police response time where I live is generally 20 minutes or more after 10:00 pm, I think having a firearm in the home is a rather prudent measure.

Self defense is not commonly considered a valid reason for firearm ownership or possession under Canadian law. Many Canadians are supportive of this viewpoint.

I am curious as to what percentage of murder victims, who had maintained this stance, would re-evaluate their thoughts on the matter if they were still alive to do so...

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

A crazy person with easy access to firearms; but you only want to look at one part of situation?

Precisely. Both (and possibly more) sides should be looked at.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Well, personally I have no problem with home defense, hunting or gallery shooting. But seeing how irrational people become over trivial stuff, say, the price of a towel at Wal-Mart, I'd rather them not having the option to shoot me dead over a disagreement. And these people aren't insane. Just temporarily losing their rationality. At least if they only have theirs fists and teeth I might live.

Well guns have been readily available to citizens in the United States for many many years now. How often do you encounter individuals pulling guns on you or others at the Walmart over minor disputes?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I'm sorry, I don't actually know what the law is in the UK outside of what's been stated on these forums (forae?). It has been stated and restated that one must provide a "legitimate reason" for wanting to own a gun, "legitimate" being hunting, or sport, but not ever ever self defense. Is this not true? I was under the impression that there is a spot on the application where one must justify his desire for a license? Is that not the case?

It is half true, on an application form you need to list a reason for a rifle, but not a shotgun. The list of reasons for a rifle are the same in the USA as the UK with the exception of self defence. The main legislation is the Firearms Act 1968

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Our Unwritten Constitution, nicely summarised by Wikipedia

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives."

It is pretty much a case of pass a law in the UK and it becomes part of our constitution.

"Acts of Parliament are among the most important sources of the constitution. According to the traditional view, Parliament has the ability to legislate however it wishes on any subject it wishes."

We have the right to guns as much as you do in the USA. Its is in our Unwritten constitution as per the Firearms Act 1968. The Founding Fathers did not like the idea of an Unwritten Constitution, so they wrote one.

[joesixpack]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It is half true, on an application form you need to list a reason for a rifle, but not a shotgun. The list of reasons for a rifle are the same in the USA as the UK with the exception of self defence. The main legislation is the Firearms Act 1968

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27

Our Unwritten Constitution, nicely summarised by Wikipedia

"Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or "unwritten" constitution.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives."

It is pretty much a case of pass a law in the UK and it becomes part of our constitution.

"Acts of Parliament are among the most important sources of the constitution. According to the traditional view, Parliament has the ability to legislate however it wishes on any subject it wishes."

We have the right to guns as much as you do in the USA. Its is in our Unwritten constitution as per the Firearms Act 1968. The Founding Fathers did not like the idea of an Unwritten Constitution, so they wrote one.

I stand corrected. Well, actually I'm sitting at the moment.

As far as a "list of reasons" though, there is no such thing in the US. In other words, there is no requirement for me to provide a "reason" for buying a weapon other than the tautological reason of "I want one because I want one". This seems a pretty significant difference.


As a totally unrelated side note, I see the word "Audiophile" on all your posts along with your profile pic and name and I keep hearing this imaginary conversation in my head;
"Loch Ness Monster Cables!"
"How do they sound?"
"Unreal!"

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is what I've been saying. America is a considerably more violent place overall, compared to UK/EU. It is not BECAUSE of guns, though (or at least, not demonstrably so).

Though give guns to people who are more inclined to be violent and the guns will become inextricably linked to the levels of death. The Scots are pretty violent to, thank God we do not do guns like you do. People are less likely to die when given a Glasgow Kiss, a slap or even a stab with a knife than when shot.

This is a huge meta study of gunshot vs stab wounds from all around the world

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997.../knives-00006/

Seattle - "The mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 22% while that for stab wounds was 4%"

South Africa - "The hospital mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 8 times that for stab wounds"

Germany - "Patients with gunshot wounds had a significantly higher mortality
rate..."

Brazil - "Stab wounds determined the best survival rate: 94%, whereas for gunshot wounds it was only 50%"

Unclear where - "The mortality rates for the stab and the gunshot groups were 13% and 50.7%...."

USA - "Full paper reveals survival rates of 46% for gunshot wounds, 78% for
stab wounds, and 36% for shotgun wounds."

So because of guns more people die in the USA when attacked with a weapon, as the weapon of choice for many is the gun.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

I stand corrected. Well, actually I'm sitting at the moment.

As far as a "list of reasons" though, there is no such thing in the US. In other words, there is no requirement for me to provide a "reason" for buying a weapon other than the tautological reason of "I want one because I want one". This seems a pretty significant difference.

I say no as you do not need to give a reason to get a shotgun and the lsit for a firearm is pretty extensive.

Quote:

As a totally unrelated side note, I see the word "Audiophile" on all your posts along with your profile pic and name and I keep hearing this imaginary conversation in my head;
"Loch Ness Monster Cables!"
"How do they sound?"

Cable debates, arrgh! They are way worse than any other debate I get into!!!!
"Unreal!"[/quote]

[Explorer]

The price of twenty six and seven year olds:

Guns and ammunition manufacturing annual revenue $11,000,000,000
Number of people employed by the firearm manufacturing industry 35,165
Number of weapons and ammunition manufacturers in the U.S. 465
Number of retail gun dealers 50,812
Annual Federal tax dollars collected on firearm sales $123,000,000

Good value folks?