Mass shooting

[bush_cheney2004]

The more guns in circulation the more often one will find its way into the hands of a mentaly disturbed person.....

So what....we don't deny the rights of citizens because of criminal acts by the mentally ill.

[Wilber]

So what....we don't deny the rights of citizens because of criminal acts by the mentally ill.

You bet. Keep handing them out like candy.

[Guest Derek L]

The more guns in circulation the more often one will find its way into the hands of a mentaly disturbed person. Mrs. Lanza's guns were legaly owned and as far as we know, she wasn't a threat. That didn't help her or 26 others.

But the facts don’t illustrate that………..Canada has many magnitudes more guns than New Zealand has people, and New Zealanders have access to unrestricted magazines sizes and actual assault weapons……..yet we have statistically similar levels of gun crimes, a clear indicator that numbers of guns and types of guns, means nothing when restrictions are placed on those that can own guns……….

As to Mrs Lanza’s guns, quite clearly, she didn’t have her guns stored safely and securely, like law abiding Canadian and New Zealanders do.

[bush_cheney2004]

You bet. Keep handing them out like candy.

We will, thank you very much. Did you think "gun nuts" would roll over because 26 people were murdered by a real nut ?

[bush_cheney2004]

....As to Mrs Lanza’s guns, quite clearly, she didn’t have her guns stored safely and securely, like law abiding Canadian and New Zealanders do.

True, but Mrs. Lanza was only required to lock up her weapons if children 16 or younger were in the house.

Edited January 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

As to Mrs Lanza’s guns, quite clearly, she didn’t have her guns stored safely and securely, like law abiding Canadian and New Zealanders do.

Exactly. The more Mrs. Lanzas there are out there, the greater the odds of this type of thing happening. I'm not saying you can't mitigate the risk but the more of something there is in use, the more chance they will injure someone whether that is guns, cars or anything else.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly. The more Mrs. Lanzas there are out there, the greater the odds of this type of thing happening. I'm not saying you can't mitigate the risk but the more of something there is in use, the more chance they will injure someone whether that is guns, cars or anything else.

Gee....no more guns...cars...or knives ? Good luck with that.

[Wilber]

We will, thank you very much. Did you think "gun nuts" would roll over because 26 people were murdered by a real nut ?

I don't think the gun nuts give a crap about those 26 people other than how their deaths might interfere with their interests.

[Wilber]

Gee....no more guns...cars...or knives ? Good luck with that.

Try driving your gun to work or cutting your steak with it.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

That can be arranged.....

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think the gun nuts give a crap about those 26 people other than how their deaths might interfere with their interests.

I don't think gun grabbers care about those 26 people either except as pawns in their game.

[jbg]

Do you ever stop to wonder why our suicide rate isn't off the charts? - why other developed nations without the guns have higher instances of suicide? Perhaps it's simply because so many more people in these other developed nations want to kill themselves? - which wouldn't speak so well of them - and that includes Canada - because if our suicide rate is a result of our guns, then it would be much lower than everyone else's if we had less. That's according to you..

All suicide stats have to be viewed with caution. There is the so-called "sub-intentional" suicide where someone dies in a high speed wreck on an empty road in good weather. Those are not counted in the stats and I suspect would significantly raise statistics.

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. The more Mrs. Lanzas there are out there, the greater the odds of this type of thing happening. I'm not saying you can't mitigate the risk but the more of something there is in use, the more chance they will injure someone whether that is guns, cars or anything else.

Ahh, but if Mrs Lanza lived in Canada or New Zealand, she’d be required to have a licence and comply with safe storage laws………As to numbers, again, that is false when proportionally contrasting Canada with New Zealand…………..

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think the gun nuts give a crap about those 26 people other than how their deaths might interfere with their interests.

And that, right there, is a demonstration as to why “gun nuts” don’t really care what you think and why we won’t give up our guns and will fight you in every way possible (And mostly win) when you try to restrict our “interests” …………Your side is incapable of having a intellectual discussion centered around facts (like what I’ve demonstrated with gun ownership in New Zealand) and ultimately will resort to emotional insults, even when we offer up viable solutions that clearly work……….As demonstrated by fact.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think gun grabbers care about those 26 people either except as pawns in their game.

Exactly, they were beating their drums’ well the bodies were still warm………..At least the NRA waited over a week out of respect to respond.

[Wilber]

Exactly, they were beating their drums’ well the bodies were still warm………..At least the NRA waited over a week out of respect to respond.

And as always their solution is more guns, only now all the country's schools.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Wilber

[GostHacked]

Ahh, but if Mrs Lanza lived in Canada or New Zealand, she’d be required to have a licence and comply with safe storage laws………As to numbers, again, that is false when proportionally contrasting Canada with New Zealand…………..

New Zealand's gun laws are even more lax than Canada or the USA. One can actually own a fully automatic assault rifle. Mind you they have to go through some hoops to get them and get a license for them, but in NZ, fully automatics are in good standing.

[Guest Derek L]

New Zealand's gun laws are even more lax than Canada or the USA. One can actually own a fully automatic assault rifle. Mind you they have to go through some hoops to get them and get a license for them, but in NZ, fully automatics are in good standing.

Yes, I know......I posted as much.........But they, like us, have licenses and safe storage requirements.

[bud]

i wonder how many gun related deaths and injuries occur due to idiocy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk

[Guest Derek L]

i wonder how many gun related deaths and injuries occur due to idiocy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk

In Canada, on average 3-5%......

[Guest American Woman]

In Canada, on average 3-5%......

I'd say likely about the same in the U.S. .... but do such statistics even exist?

[Guest Derek L]

I'd say likely about the same in the U.S. .... but do such statistics even exist?

I haven't checked, but I'd figure either/or the CDC and FBI would have such data.

[GostHacked]

Thought this was interesting ...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/iowa-police-department-seeks-to-arm-officers-with-semi-automatic-ar-15s/

Police in one Iowa city could soon be buying their own assault rifles to carry in squad cars to ensure they aren't outgunned by criminals in the wake of several high-profile shootings involving semi-automatic AR-15s, FoxNews.com has learned.

Half of the 50-member force in Marion, Iowa, will take part in the upgrade, paying for the $2,000 guns in installments deducted from their paychecks, according to Police Chief Harry Daugherty. He said the proposal, expected to be approved by the city’s seven-member City Council late Thursday, will mean initial responders will have enough firepower to deal with heavily armed suspects. Currently, only members of Marion’s 12-member SWAT team carry AR-15s.

“We can’t wait for SWAT to get there,” Daugherty told FoxNews.com. “We have to do something and, at this point, the chances of the assailant having more firepower [than responding officers] is greater than vice versa. I want them to at least be on the same playing field when we’re going into these types of situations.”

The cops are buying these weapons, but it also seems that they actually get to keep these rifles as they are comiong out of the officers paychecks in order to pay for and acquire the weapons.

But what we always see is that the cops show up AFTER the incident. Aurora, they showed up after it was all done, same with Sandy Hook. Putting more firepower in the hands of police does NOT combat the gun crime in the USA. it will NOT prevent a killer from doing what they want to do.

[Signals.Cpl]

Thought this was interesting ...

http://www.foxnews.c...tomatic-ar-15s/

The cops are buying these weapons, but it also seems that they actually get to keep these rifles as they are comiong out of the officers paychecks in order to pay for and acquire the weapons.

But what we always see is that the cops show up AFTER the incident. Aurora, they showed up after it was all done, same with Sandy Hook. Putting more firepower in the hands of police does NOT combat the gun crime in the USA. it will NOT prevent a killer from doing what they want to do.

Yes it does not make a difference in some of the shootings but in situation where the shooter is still active they go in and have a better chance of stopping the shooter. Used to be that the police officers would secure the scene and wait for Tactical Teams to show up and neutralize the threat but now police officers go in to take down the shooter rather than waiting for Tactical Teams and with assault rifles they can at least be on somewhat more equal terms with the shooter.

This doesn't solve the problem but it means that at least when the police get there they can engage the attacker with equal or greater firepower.

[GostHacked]

Yes it does not make a difference in some of the shootings but in situation where the shooter is still active they go in and have a better chance of stopping the shooter. Used to be that the police officers would secure the scene and wait for Tactical Teams to show up and neutralize the threat but now police officers go in to take down the shooter rather than waiting for Tactical Teams and with assault rifles they can at least be on somewhat more equal terms with the shooter.

And a properly trained civilian who was packing can solve the issue before the cops arrive, which comes with a high potential to save more lives. All to often the cops arrive after all is said and done and people are dead. Since the response time is the same, does it matter if the cops were carrying AR-15s or a bubble gun?