Mass shooting

[Wilber]

There is some irony in having BC-2004 waiting to turn millions into ashes in order to protect our way-of-life but then asking him the price at which he'd give-up his rights to own guns by special pleading via dead children. Just sayin...

Who's way of life is he protecting with his own guns? Just sayin.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not trying to make it personal between us, I'm trying to get at the mindset which is at the root of what is going on in your country. Unless you start coming to grip with that, things will not improve. BC happens to be the only one at hand.

The "mindset" of individual freedoms is alive and well in both of our countries, even when such "freedoms" pose a risk/danger to others, and I already pointed out that alcohol falls into that category. People don't need to drink any more than they need to own guns, and having a lower drinking age in Canada endangers even more people, as studies have shown that raising the legal drinking age to 21 saves lives. Yet I don't see you going on about that - even as I pointed out the statistics regarding alcohol related deaths, as you go on and on about gun laws/gun related deaths in the U.S. I can't help but wonder why that is.

Edited December 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

The "mindset" of individual freedoms is alive and well in both of our countries, even when such "freedoms" pose a risk/danger to others, and I already pointed out that alcohol falls into that category. People don't need to drink any more than they need to own guns, and having a lower drinking age in Canada endangers even more people, as studies have shown that raising the legal drinking age to 21 saves lives. Yet I don't see you going on about that - even as I pointed out the statistics regarding alcohol related deaths, as you go on and on about gun laws/gun related deaths in the U.S. I can't help but wonder why that is.

I'm not against people owning firearms but unlike alcohol, the firearms we are talking about are specifically designed to kill human beings and are really no good for anything else. People use alcohol for its intended purpose all the time and no one gets hurt. I often have a martini before dinner or a glass of whisky with a friend and no one gets hurt. You can't kill someone with a bottle of scotch alone unless you hit them over the head with it.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not against people owning firearms but unlike alcohol, the firearms we are talking about are specifically designed to kill human beings and are really no good for anything else.

Yes, they are good for other things, for people who enjoy such other things.

People use alcohol for its intended purpose all the time and no one gets hurt.

Oh, please. People use guns all the time and no one gets hurt, either. However, sometimes people use guns and alcohol illegally, and people get hurt. Equally. Furthermore, sometimes guns save lives. Can't say the same for alcohol.

I often have a martini before dinner or a glass of whisky with a friend and no one gets hurt. You can't kill someone with a bottle of scotch alone unless you hit them over the head with it.

You can't kill someone with a gun unless you use it illegally, either.

That you are making excuses when alcohol is responsible for just as many deaths as guns - as it's no more necessary to drink alcohol than to own a gun - says a lot. Actually, there's more reason to own a gun than to drink alcohol, as a gun can offer protection.

Edited December 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Yes, they are good for other things, for people who enjoy such other things.

Other than just blasting away at something, what would those things be?

Oh, please. People use guns all the time and no one gets hurt, either. However, sometimes people use guns and alcohol illegally, and people get hurt. Equally. Furthermore, sometimes guns save lives. Can't say the same for alcohol.

You nailed it. Alcohol can do nothing unless you combine it with something else like a gun or a car. Alcohol has many purposes other than consumption. What other purpose does a hand gun or assault rifle have other than in the hands of the military or police?

You can't kill someone with a gun unless you use it illegally, either.

You can't kill someone legally, period. What's your point?

That you are making excuses when alcohol is responsible for just as many deaths as guns - as it's no more necessary to drink alcohol than to own a gun - says a lot. Actually, there's more reason to own a gun than to drink alcohol, as a gun can offer protection.

It is no more necessary to drink alcohol than own a gun. Neither of them are necessary. Just about any study you want to name shows a gun kept for protection is likely to be far more dangerous to its owner and their family than it is to anyone else. Besides, I've already said I'm not against ownership of firearms, just certain kinds.

[bush_cheney2004]

People use alcohol for its intended purpose all the time and no one gets hurt.

People use firearms just the same way and nobody gets hurt.....millions of people lawfully and responsibly own/use firearms, including the type in question.

As for your personal obsession with me and gun ownership, I was introduced to firearms at a very young age and came to excel with them at NCAA match competitions at university. I supervised firearms on a routine basis as tools for physical security in the US Navy, qualifying ship's crew in M1911 .45 semi-automatic handguns, M14 rifles, and riot guns (shotguns). We even had a "gun" that expelled a shot line for ship-to-ship replenishment. Believe it or not, most "gun nuts" take training and safety very, very seriously.

For these reasons, "guns" are not the exotic objects or targets of worship that you imply. They are tools designed to do specific things, up to and including deadly force. I sold all my firearms when my first child was born at my wife's request, but that was over 20 years ago, and I can afford to legally buy whatever I want now. So the answer to your question is that guns are part of my cultural and professional experience, and it helps that my right to own them was established over 200 years ago. Apparently you have a problem with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can't kill someone legally, period. What's your point?

Of course you can kill someone legally...justifiable homicide.

[Wilber]

People use firearms just the same way and nobody gets hurt.....millions of people lawfully and responsibly own/use firearms, including the type in question.

As for your personal obsession with me and gun ownership, I was introduced to firearms at a very young age and came to excel with them at NCAA match competitions at university. I supervised firearms on a routine basis as tools for physical security in the US Navy, qualifying ship's crew in M1911 .45 semi-automatic handguns, M14 rifles, and riot guns (shotguns). We even had a "gun" that expelled a shot line for ship-to-ship replenishment. Believe it or not, most "gun nuts" take training and safety very, very seriously.

For these reasons, "guns" are not the exotic objects or targets of worship that you imply. They are tools designed to do specific things, up to and including deadly force. I sold all my firearms when my first child was born at my wife's request, but that was over 20 years ago, and I can afford to legally buy whatever I want now. So the answer to your question is that guns are part of my cultural and professional experience, and it helps that my right to own them was established over 200 years ago. Apparently you have a problem with that.

No BC. You and your country have a problem with it. I'll leave you to it.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course you can kill someone legally...justifiable homicide.

Yep. As I had pointed out, owning a gun can serve a purpose - self defense. It's interesting to see Wilber make excuses regarding the right to drink alcohol - even as alcohol related deaths are just as plentiful as gun related deaths. Furthermore, Canada, with is lower legal drinking age, endangers more people.

:

You nailed it. Alcohol can do nothing unless you combine it with something else like a gun or a car.

Alcohol most definitely can "do something" even without being combined with anything else.

I "nailed" no such thing as I would never say make such a ludicrous claim. You honestly don't know the effects of alcoholism on the body or a person's behavior? A drunk needn't have "something else" in order die from the effects or physically harm or kill another person.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

No BC. You and your country have a problem with it. I'll leave you to it.

You have no other choice. As AW points out, I am far more likely to be killed or injured by a motor vehicle / drunk driver. But I don't want to ban cars.

[Wilber]

Yep. As I had pointed out, owning a gun can serve a purpose - self defense. It's interesting to see Wilber make excuses regarding the right to drink alcohol - even as alcohol related deaths are just as plentiful as gun related deaths. Furthermore, Canada, with is lower legal drinking age, endangers more people.

:

It can, but in reality it is more likely to kill you or someone you know.

I "nailed" no such thing as I would never say make such a ludicrous claim. You honestly don't know the effects of alcoholism on the body or a person's behavior? A drunk needn't have "something else" in order die from the effects or physically harm or kill another person.

You can't kill someone else with your alcoholism unless you use something else to do the job. You also don't need an assault rifle or hand gun to kill yourself. You can always use alcohol.

[Canuckistani]

You have no other choice. As AW points out, I am far more likely to be killed or injured by a motor vehicle / drunk driver. But I don't want to ban cars.

Thank God for that, our society would be in bid trouble. But it's a false analogy to compare them to guns. First off, nobody wants to ban guns. But even if they did, it would reduce murder by guns. Britain saw a huge decline in gun murders after placing much greater restriction on guns. OTOH, people were still able to get to work, go shopping or whatever cars are used for - ie the only effect of restricting guns was to reduce killings. Oh, and a few gun nuts crying in their ale. Small price to pay.

[Wilber]

You have no other choice. As AW points out, I am far more likely to be killed or injured by a motor vehicle / drunk driver. But I don't want to ban cars.

Which do you think would have the bigger impact on your life and society? Banning cars of guns? We don't ban cars but we don't legalize F1 cars and fuel dragsters for road use either. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not in favour of banning firearms completely, just certain types.

[Guest American Woman]

It can, but in reality it is more likely to kill you or someone you know.

At least it can, while alcohol can't ever provide self-protection - but is just as likely to cause death as guns are.

You can't kill someone else with your alcoholism unless you use something else to do the job.

You most certainly can. If you don't realize that drunks can, and do, become violent and kill with their hands, I have to wonder what world you've been living in.

At any rate, it's triggered by the consumption of alcohol - which for some strange reason you seem to be defending. Guess that's one freedom that can - and does - result in the death of just as many innocents as guns that you can stand behind, eh?

Edited December 19, 2012 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

.... OTOH, people were still able to get to work, go shopping or whatever cars are used for - ie the only effect of restricting guns was to reduce killings. Oh, and a few gun nuts crying in their ale. Small price to pay.

Then you have already accepted a certain level of mortality for the sake of transportation and alcohol sales/tax revenue. Once you've crossed that line, it's just a matter of degree. The U.K. does not have a constitutional right to bear arms.

[Canuckistani]

Then you have already accepted a certain level of mortality for the sake of transportation and alcohol sales/tax revenue. Once you've crossed that line, it's just a matter of degree. The U.K. does not have a constitutional right to bear arms.

It's all a matter of degree. Bear your arms. Even in Gunmerica, you have outright bans on certain types of arms, restrictions on others. It's all a matter of degree. You should have further restrictions, IMO. But it's your country, and if you're willing to accept a certain level of mass killings so you have fewer restrictions on guns, that's up to you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Which do you think would have the bigger impact on your life and society? Banning cars of guns? We don't ban cars but we don't legalize F1 cars and fuel dragsters for road use either. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not in favour of banning firearms completely, just certain types.

More equivocation that sidesteps the value of a human life. What you are in favor of is irrelevant to the lawful right to bear arms in a foreign country.

[Guest Derek L]

Sky marshals have been around for decades and were quite effective at deterring hijackers who just wanted to divert an aircraft or hold it for ransom and had no real intention of killing themselves or anyone else. They did nothing to deter the 9/11 hijackers and will be a minimal deterrence to anyone else who doesn't plan on being alive at the end of the day. They will just be number one on the target list.

At the time of 9/11, there were just over two dozen Federal Sky Marshalls……..not much deterrence there……..As such the numbers have increased Post 9/11, coupled with pilots being armed.

On edit. In the short term, putting these people in schools will will probably deter wannabee copycats but they will do little to deter someone who is truly committed.

Anecdotal, but was talking with my sister last night, an elementary school teacher on the Island, and brought up the idea of “school marshals”……….Her response shocked me, though not acting in mine or BC’s intended roles, schools/districts with larger amounts of Foster Children, or children with parents going through divorce/custody battles will a have a plain clothes liaison (in her district RCMP) at the behest of the Ministry of Children and Family Development with only members of the staff being made aware………What’s further surprising, is that there is nearly one officer assigned to each Elementary and Middle school within her district............

[bush_cheney2004]

.... But it's your country, and if you're willing to accept a certain level of mass killings so you have fewer restrictions on guns, that's up to you.

Agreed....Americans will decide what that acceptable threshhold is, and legislate accordingly. As I have already described, the gun ban debate is identical to abortion "nuts" who refuse to accept any limits based on fetal viability, because it is perceived as the slippery slope to a total ban on some abortions.

Edited December 19, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...What’s further surprising, is that there is nearly one officer assigned to each Elementary and Middle school within her district............

Good...that is exactly what I would expect to happen given the threat assessment you describe. It was fun to point out that Toronto area schools already have armed security on school campuses.

Edited December 19, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Oh. You have evidence that the mother had mental health issues? Didn't she have her guns properly stored too?

It's tough to tell with all the conflicting reports, but I believe she was screened and legally obtained and stored her guns.

I never said she had mental health issues........As for the storage of her guns, there is no requirement within the States, at the very least on the National level, for safe storage………As for if they were stored “properly”, well you tell me.

As to the intent of my post you quoted, these will be, in my educated opinion, what the NRA will call for/support this Friday........Eddie the Eagle will encourage parents to purchase a $300 safe at Costco…….

[Guest American Woman]

It's all a matter of degree. Bear your arms. Even in Gunmerica, you have outright bans on certain types of arms, restrictions on others. It's all a matter of degree. You should have further restrictions, IMO. But it's your country, and if you're willing to accept a certain level of mass killings so you have fewer restrictions on guns, that's up to you.

Setting 21 as the legal age to consume alcohol results in less drunk driving fatalities, but it's your country, and if you're willing to accept more fatalities so 18/19 year olds can drink, that's up to you.

[Wilber]

At the time of 9/11, there were just over two dozen Federal Sky Marshalls……..not much deterrence there……..As such the numbers have increased Post 9/11, coupled with pilots being armed.

The US is the only country that has allowed armed pilots. The real deterence is improved security, intelligence, hardened cockpit doors and the procedures that go with them, but most of all awarness, not only by the crews but the passengers. Never again will over 100 people sit passively by and let themselves be killed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if terrorists manage to bring down more aircraft but the window for another 9/11 has been effectively closed and sky marshals are the least of the reasons why.

Anecdotal, but was talking with my sister last night, an elementary school teacher on the Island, and brought up the idea of “school marshals”……….Her response shocked me, though not acting in mine or BC’s intended roles, schools/districts with larger amounts of Foster Children, or children with parents going through divorce/custody battles will a have a plain clothes liaison (in her district RCMP) at the behest of the Ministry of Children and Family Development with only members of the staff being made aware………What’s further surprising, is that there is nearly one officer assigned to each Elementary and Middle school within her district............

Not really, if a person is intent on dieing, the thought of getting shot won't deter them. I do agree with the targeted approach but that is only good if you can recognize a target. Kind of makes a bit of a case for a gun registry, don't it.

[Wilber]

More equivocation that sidesteps the value of a human life. What you are in favor of is irrelevant to the lawful right to bear arms in a foreign country.

You are correct, what I am in favour of is logic.

[Wilber]

Setting 21 as the legal age to consume alcohol results in less drunk driving fatalities, but it's your country, and if you're willing to accept more fatalities so 18/19 year olds can drink, that's up to you.

Perhaps 21 is the legal age in your country because it is also the legal age to own a hand gun. What's the legal driving age by the way?

My son and I were in the US on his 19th birthday. We were driving by the "Holy Smoke its a Tavern" a converted church and it occured to me that I could buy him a shotgun for his birthday where we were but I couldn't take him in an buy him a beer. Ah America.