Mass shooting

[bush_cheney2004]

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?

Varies by state...I was a licensed driver at age 14. No driving permit required. Pretty dangerous, huh ?

[Guest Derek L]

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.

She also mentioned a heated discussion in the staff room over “gun control”, with the staff, also a surprise, being split ~50/50.…….She took great pleasure in mentioning to some smug colleagues that many teacher pension funds have options in gun makers, with the largest in the United States being the California teachers pension fund recently owning over 5% in Bushmaster’s parent company, Freedom group……..With their recent divestment of the gun maker on political grounds, based on sales figures over the last few days, they’ve done themselves a great disservice………

One little tidbit I was discussing with a friend this morning is that now is a good time to buy Sturm & Ruger stock (As well as AR-15s and 30 round P-Mags ), fore with the possibility of the Assault Weapons ban coming back, Ruger’s product line would be the least effected of all the major North American gun makers, couple this with their inability to keep up with demand of their products, and Ruger could in the near future in the position to pick up the Freedom Group…….Imagine Remingtons, Bushmasters and Marlins having the same quality and low pricing like a Ruger.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

I don't follow.

[Guest American Woman]

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

You could have bought him a shotgun for his birthday in Canada; no need to come to the States.

but I couldn't take him in an buy him a beer.

Like I said, you support some freedoms, even though they endanger innocent lives. You want to buy him a beer, you should have stayed in Canada where 18/19 year olds have the right to drink, thus putting a greater danger on society; one that you evidently support. Gotta love the selective concern for innocent lives.

Edited December 19, 2012 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

….Imagine Remingtons, Bushmasters and Marlins having the same quality and low pricing like a Ruger.

That would be a market changer. Right now, retailers are standing down on "assault weapons" sales, while applications for concealed carry and purchase permits are way up. The fear of course is that weapons and ownership rights will soon be curtailed, but I do not think that will happen. If Newtown is a "tipping point", it's probably to start enforcing existing laws and safety. Right now there are not enough votes to reinstate the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and they want to keep powder dry for the fiscal cliff budget/tax battle.

Edited December 19, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

You could have bought him a shotgun for his birthday in Canada; no need to come to the States.

Like I said, you support some freedoms, even though they endanger innocent lives. You want to buy him a beer, you should have stayed in Canada where 18/19 year olds have the right to drink, thus putting a greater danger on society; one that you evidently support. Gotta love the selective concern for innocent lives.

I could also buy him a beer. Yes there is some risk to allowing a 19 year old to drink. There is a risk allowing a 21 year old to drink. There is a risk allowing anyone to drink. There are risks to getting into a bath tub. You can send a kid of to war with an assault weapon four years before he can legaly have a beer. So I really don't see what that has to do with anything.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Yes there is some risk to allowing a 19 year old to drink. There is a risk allowing a 21 year old to drink. There is a risk allowing anyone to drink. There are risks to getting into a bath tub.

Sounds as if you're finally getting it.

[Wilber]

Varies by state...I was a licensed driver at age 14. No driving permit required. Pretty dangerous, huh ?

So why is AW going on about drinking age?

[Wilber]

Sounds as if you're finally getting it.

Not really. If I did, I wouldn't get out bed until I was 80, then I would probably fall down and break a hip.

[bush_cheney2004]

So why is AW going on about drinking age?

Because Canadian provinces have determined that the higher risk of alcohol related death and injury is worth it compared to higher drinking ages in U.S. states. Cheers !

[Wilber]

Because Canadian provinces have determined that the higher risk of alcohol related death and injury is worth it compared to higher drinking ages in U.S. states. Cheers !

Ya but 19 year olds become 21 year olds and so on so I don't see how that equates. What's so magic about 21 anyway?

[guyser]

, you should have stayed in Canada where 18/19 year olds have the right to drink, thus putting a greater danger on society; one that you evidently support. Gotta love the selective concern for innocent lives.

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. ¹

^{The popular idea that delaying the consumption of alcohol by young people appears highly questionable. As researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies found, drinking experience reduces traffic fatalities.}

^{This suggests that young people should learn to drink in moderation before learning to drive. Inexperienced drinking combined with inexperienced driving appears to be a highly dangerous mix.}

^{This is not a strange or radical idea. Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Jews, Portuguese and many others around the world teach their children how to drink in moderation as pre-schoolers. What's a strange and radical idea is imposing a minimum drinking age of 21. Of all the nations of the entire world, the U.S.is the only country to maintain this extreme social experiment. The other countries that have tried it (Ukrainia and South Korea) have concluded that it doesn't work and have abandoned it.}

^{To believe that the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21 is effective is to ignore the facts and live in a fantasy world.}

[Wilber]

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. ¹

^{The popular idea that delaying the consumption of alcohol by young people appears highly questionable. As researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies found, drinking experience reduces traffic fatalities.}

^{This suggests that young people should learn to drink in moderation before learning to drive. Inexperienced drinking combined with inexperienced driving appears to be a highly dangerous mix.}

^{This is not a strange or radical idea. Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Jews, Portuguese and many others around the world teach their children how to drink in moderation as pre-schoolers. What's a strange and radical idea is imposing a minimum drinking age of 21. Of all the nations of the entire world, the U.S.is the only country to maintain this extreme social experiment. The other countries that have tried it (Ukrainia and South Korea) have concluded that it doesn't work and have abandoned it.}

^{To believe that the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of 21 is effective is to ignore the facts and live in a fantasy world.}

Interesting. When I turned 21 the drinking age in Canada was still 21. With all the emphasis that has been put on drunk driving, I think today's kids probably behave better than we did for the most part. Designated drivers were for sissies.

[Guest American Woman]

Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. ¹

That's one study among many. I can cite studies that show raising the drinking age does save lives and I can site studies that show Europeans have a higher instance of alcohol abuse than Americans, so rather get caught up in that, I'll just say that I find it the conclusion that the most important factor is "drinking experience" to be questionable at best. First and foremost, I would think driving experience would the the most important factor. Secondly, to suggest that better judgement doesn't come with age is also questionable at best. Last but not least, the idea that starting kids drinking in preschool is a good thing is something that I'm not even going to get into in this thread.

So I'll just stick to the most important aspect the 'freedom to drink alcohol' and 'freedom to own guns' - and that's that both "freedoms" result in the same danger to innocent people in society - yet we have some who are appalled by gun deaths as they minimize the other. I'm sure parents who have lost children to drunk drivers wouldn't be impressed.

[eyeball]

What would his giving up his guns accomplish?

It would spare the rest of society from having to impose it's will against gun owner's.

It would be a really decent thing to do and my estimation of gun owners would climb as far as they were willing to reach out. Like I said I'm not opposed to guns per se but I fully realize now why I don't want them stored in people's homes where they are easily accessible to anyone who may have lost their minds. That would include people who may have been sane when they were originally licenced to own guns but have since become ill and incapable of thinking rationally.

[Guest Derek L]

That would be a market changer. Right now, retailers are standing down on "assault weapons" sales, while applications for concealed carry and purchase permits are way up. The fear of course is that weapons and ownership rights will soon be curtailed, but I do not think that will happen. If Newtown is a "tipping point", it's probably to start enforcing existing laws and safety. Right now there are not enough votes to reinstate the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, and they want to keep powder dry for the fiscal cliff budget/tax battle.

I don’t know about “standing down”……..Was watching the Evening News, and they’re saying Wal-Mart is running out of AR-15 clones……….Myself personally, over the last few days, have been purchasing STANAG, Mini-14, M-14 and 10/22 mags, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that there has been a run on the market even here (I think I just got the last three factory Mini-14 Mags from Cabelas Canada’s online store)

Though I’m not a huge fan of the AR-15 platform, I’ve gotten the green light from the “boss” to purchase a unspecified amount, to be determined by price, of AR-15 lower receivers just because…………

[bush_cheney2004]

I don’t know about “standing down”……..Was watching the Evening News, and they’re saying Wal-Mart is running out of AR-15 clones……

Our local big box sporting goods retailers removed the clones from display, but smaller shops made no changes. As you know, different firearms consumer profiles visit either type of store. Walmart did emphatically state that it did not sell clones via their internet site. I have always preferred a full service gun shop with knowledgeable staff and a range affiliation. Big box stores are OK for common consumables.

[Guest Derek L]

Our local big box sporting goods retailers removed the clones from display, but smaller shops made no changes. As you know, different firearms consumer profiles visit either type of store. Walmart did emphatically state that it did not sell clones via their internet site. I have always preferred a full service gun shop with knowledgeable staff and a range affiliation. Big box stores are OK for common consumables.

I agree, one of the local shops you’ll be greeted by a pair of friendly black labs followed by the old-timers………The Box Giants usually friendly enough, but not as much inherent knowledge……….Up here, Wal-Mart and Canadian Tire only tend to gravitate towards the hunting aspects of the sport, not selling pistol ammo or all things “tactical”……….I’ve no problem going into one of the giants for a box of .22lr or bird shot and clays, but for bigger purchases I’ll usually stick with the local family owned guys, or a few other family owned shops across the country for online purchases………..

[jbg]

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.

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.

There was little or no publicity about sky marshals for years before 9/11. The problem is not the suicidal nature of the animals who hijack, but the perceived lack of coverage. Even a dedicated jihadi has little desire to wind up rotting in a U.S. prison cell; he wants to go out in a blaze of "glory". Ditto the Adam Lanzas, Jarod Lochners or James Holmes' of the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

....but for bigger purchases I’ll usually stick with the local family owned guys, or a few other family owned shops across the country for online purchases………..

I like dealing with staff who know the product, can show me how to strip it down for cleaning, and have feedback from other owners to share. Walmart just can't provide that, and I don't expect them too. There is a lot more information available online now, but that wasn't the case years ago.....you needed someone to share tribal knowledge. Buying a handgun vs. a hunting rifle is a different experience with implied overtones.

[Guest Derek L]

I like dealing with staff who know the product, can show me how to strip it down for cleaning, and have feedback from other owners to share. Walmart just can't provide that, and I don't expect them too. There is a lot more information available online now, but that wasn't the case years ago.....you needed someone to share tribal knowledge. Buying a handgun vs. a hunting rifle is a different experience with implied overtones.

Agreed, coupled with some higher end European firearms, and the “tech support” is invaluable……..

[Wilber]

There was little or no publicity about sky marshals for years before 9/11. The problem is not the suicidal nature of the animals who hijack, but the perceived lack of coverage. Even a dedicated jihadi has little desire to wind up rotting in a U.S. prison cell; he wants to go out in a blaze of "glory". Ditto the Adam Lanzas, Jarod Lochners or James Holmes' of the world.

We certainly disagree on how effective an armed guard would be to someone who is on a suicide mission anyway. They often target the military. Regardless, using armed guards so they can shoot it out with a hijacker or intruder in a crowded aircraft or school isn't a solution, it's a last resort because you have failed at everything else.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Regardless, using armed guards so they can shoot it out with a hijacker or intruder in a crowded aircraft or school isn't a solution, it's a last resort because you have failed at everything else.

Deadly force is often the "last resort" regardless of other security measures. Law enforcement has developed tactics and non-lethal force for certain situations, but public safety after-the-fact often means "shooting it out", especially with a mentally ill perp hell bent on suicide anyway.

[Wilber]

Deadly force is often the "last resort" regardless of other security measures. Law enforcement has developed tactics and non-lethal force for certain situations, but public safety after-the-fact often means "shooting it out", especially with a mentally ill perp hell bent on suicide anyway.

We agree then that it is not a solution.

[DogOnPorch]

Deadly force is often the "last resort" regardless of other security measures. Law enforcement has developed tactics and non-lethal force for certain situations, but public safety after-the-fact often means "shooting it out", especially with a mentally ill perp hell bent on suicide anyway.

Still the most famous...or infamous...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout