Mass shooting

[Guest American Woman]

Fine, take them to gun ranges, but Christ don‘t give them guns, the alleged killer had been in and out of a mental hospital after threatening to kill himself and others for months…….I don’t begrudge Kyle for attempting to help his fellow vet, but obviously this further illustrates why crazy people shouldn’t have guns.

I give Kyle credit for his dedication to helping vets -

Travis Cox, director of FITCO Cares - the nonprofit that Kyle set up to give in-home fitness equipment to physically and emotionally wounded veterans - said he believes that Kyle and Littlefield were helping Routh work through PTSD.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2621764.html

- so my comment was strictly in response to the idea that no one but "a gun nut whackado" would take someone with PTSD to a gun range.

[eyeball]

What do you think GPS will solve? it's just another unreasonable attempt at gun control.

If there were designated gun-free zones around public places that were deemed sensitive then guns outfitted with GPS could trigger an alarm giving police a chance to home in on the signal before it gets to deep into the zone.

It's a technological attempt at gun control.

I will say that some form of gun control is good, but what we are seeing is a case where everyone is actually responsible with a gun is being punished for the actions of a few. And this will always be the case.

Go tell it to the millions of people who are faced with the prospect of being in a dedicated government database.

Damn I'd love do save you but my gun won't fire being in this GPS enabled restricted zone. The gun just won't fire!. No worries, criminals will always find a way around it. Always have, always will.

We're talking about people who get sick who go on shooting rampages, not criminals. Stop moving the goal posts.

After 9/11 you saw tighter controls at airports. Has it solved the problem of international terrorism? No. Has it reduced the risk of a terror attack? Not one bit.

I don't know, I've heard more than a few people around here claim the fact there hasn't been any further attacks is proof the tighter controls worked.

What I have said, and others have chimed in as well, is the mental state of many of these people who commit these crimes.

Yes and this sentence captures perfectly the ongoing never-ending conflation with illness and crime.

As I often ask, do you spank your kids too when they come home with a cold?

The possibility of a crime is still there no matter if you take the gun away or not. Sure knives may not be as deadly, compared to a gun, but that still does not talk about what is making these people do these things in the first place?

Well, again...when we're talking about crime, it's usually the hope of a financial gain that motivates their use of a gun. Killing a bunch of kids then blowing themselves away once they've done that would be a little nuts don't you think?

I have a problem with a person with mental disabilities to own a firearm. You need to treat those people before a gun can be put in their hand. I am sure there are some grey areas, but in cases where it is clear cut that the person is not of a mental state conducive to safe use of a firearm, they should be denied.

Yes we all know about the need and big push to prevent crazy people from acquiring guns but no one seems to have given much if any thought to what we do when people who already own guns go crazy or when someone in their household gets sick. This is where we need to apply better controls and technology.

This does not push them farther into the shadows. It's reasonable to screen people better and deny based on a certain mental state.

Who gets pushed further into the shadows are gun owners who start feeling sick and keep it to themselves out of fear of losing their guns. There can also be no doubt whatsoever that a special database just for mentally ill people will prevent millions from ever admitting to having a problem or seeking treatment whether they're trying to get a gun or not.

They are trying to lead, but the government does not want to listen. The government would love to see the gun owners get out of the way so they can follow. And then the USA can follow in the footsteps of the UK and Australia. No that guns are banned for the most part., criminals LOVE this as they won't encounter as much resistance when they are committing crimes.

Oh for fuck sake's...I see the criminals are back on cue. Of course most people seem to be oblivious to how constantly conflating mental illness with criminality plays such a big part in the process of stigmatizing the mentally ill and making people so fearful of it. It needs to be reiterated that mentally ill people are more than twice as likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator.

The government would rather deal with the guns than deal with the huge mental health issue that seems to be common among these mass shootings. Only in these mass shootings do people pay attention or the media whores themselves out for ratings.

These mass shootings underscore the issue of mental illness and the ease with which they can pick up a gun and hurt and kill so many people.

Hey wait a minute...look! There goes another criminal. It's crazy man, they're everywhere.

Is there any real reason to have kids that have not even hit their teens yet to put them on brain numbing drugs like Ritalin?

Damned if I know, I'm more worried about mine being on Risperidone and being hit with a Taser...Tasers give me nightmares.

Edited February 6, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

If there were designated gun-free zones around public places that were deemed sensitive then guns outfitted with GPS could trigger an alarm giving police a chance to home in on the signal before it gets to deep into the zone.

It's a technological attempt at gun control.

First people, by and large, won’t comply………..Second, your GPS tracker can be neutralized with a microwave, magnet, copper & brass and a plane old hammer.

Go tell it to the millions of people who are faced with the prospect of being in a dedicated government database.

How about we split the difference, and put GPS tracker into the mentally ill?

You’re opposed to “tracking” the mentally ill, but not the case with healthy legal gun owners?

Yes we all know about the need and big push to prevent crazy people from acquiring guns but no one seems to have given much if any thought to what we do when people who already own guns go crazy or when someone in their household gets sick. This is where we need to apply better controls and technology.

That will never happen...........

These mass shootings underscore the issue of mental illness and the ease with which they can pick up a gun and hurt and kill so many people.

Hey wait a minute...look! There goes another criminal. It's crazy man, they're everywhere.

If you feel it’s that easy, go get a gun (legally) and demonstrate how easy it is in Canada with our current licencing system.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Derek L

[eyeball]

First people, by and large, won’t comply………..Second, your GPS tracker can be neutralized with a microwave, magnet, copper & brass and a plane old hammer.

1st) I'm pretty sure most of you will snap to it and say how high when the state says jump. The law is the law is the law and all that you know. You guy's are pretty renowned for buying into that crap.

2nd) The demand for more robust hardier trackers will motivate some innovator to invent one, in the meantime I guess we'll need to rely on really good screening of individuals before they check their gun out of the armoury.

How about we split the difference, and put GPS tracker into the mentally ill?

No man, that's just plain sick.

You’re opposed to “tracking” the mentally ill, but not the case with healthy legal gun owners?

That will never happen...........

Good, I'm just as opposed to tracking healthy people as I am tracking people who are ill. That's why I said track guns instead.

If you feel it’s that easy, go get a gun (legally) and demonstrate how easy it is in Canada with our current licencing system.

You mean to say Adam Lanza's demonstration didn't make it plain enough?

[Guest Derek L]

1st) I'm pretty sure most of you will snap to it and say how high when the state says jump. The law is the law is the law and all that you know. You guy's are pretty renowned for buying into that crap.

Oh, you mean like how people obey the drug laws………or the compliance levels with the last registry?

2nd) The demand for more robust hardier trackers will motivate some innovator to invent one, in the meantime I guess we'll need to rely on really good screening of individuals before they check their gun out of the armoury.

To check guns out of said armoury, wouldn’t guns have to be checked in in the first place? And what guns do you speak of? I sold all mine to Bob in Canmore Alberta………..Or was it Tony in Sudbury……..Phil in Halifax maybe?

No man, that's just plain sick.

But tracking other people isn’t?

Good, I'm just as opposed to tracking healthy people as I am tracking people who are ill. That's why I said track guns instead.

But guns don’t kill people………

You mean to say Adam Lanza's demonstration didn't make it plain enough?

Not in Canada...........What’s funny, is if the State had of allowed his mother to commit him to a hospital for treatment, that plastic & aircraft grade aluminium Bushmaster wouldn’t have killed anyone………

[eyeball]

The State didn't because it only takes mental health as seriously as society does, which isn't very much. Unfortunately when society does it's usually misguided and wrong-headed which if listened to and applied results in things getting worse not better.

What's funnier is why his mother didn't feel compelled to check her guns into an armoury as a precaution. Perhaps if society took guns more seriously she would have.

[WIP]

Good guy with a gun loses again.

I wouldn't even go so far as to call him the good guy! I am suspicious of all so called super soldiers and supercops who, unlike the average person in a freefire zone, show few if any symptoms of PTSD and can't wait to get out their in the action for the next adrenaline rush. Can't go on much aside from his gunnut causes and his capacity to earn a living in the rapidly growing private security business, and the fact that he was apparently so dense and clueless that he thought taking traumatized former soldiers on gun range outings was a good idea.

What I am left with is the feeling that it's a nation of cowards that lionizes military heroes....as long as they keep their heroism over there and don't bring it back home with them and keep on killing for thrills. But the greatest price to pay for the U.S. by creating a state of perpetual war, where they train a 1% minority of their population to be their mercenaries and go off to fight their foreign enemies, while they live in a state of ignorance and indifference to the wars is that those soldiers....or at least most of those soldiers come home afterwards! Most who are traumatized by the magnitude and scale of death and injury that they have been exposed to, will internalize it and kill themselves - as we are seeing from statistics on suicide showing more returning veterans commit suicide than are killed in action.

But, the war theatre is the playpen of the homicidal maniac; and if they don't advance up the ranks and remain part of the permanent war machine, some of them may come home and carry on with their violence and killing on the homefront. And all this, along with the medical costs of injured veterans has to be weighed against the deliberate policy decisions of the Bush and Obama Administrations to make war and the threat of war a permanent tool to intimidate adversaries and neutral parties that have not readily accepted resource development and trade terms from the West. There is a back story to how this "war on terror" is now permeating the African Continent and land, mining and oil are the unmentioned reasons behind creating and expanding AFRICOM and fighting terrorism in West Africa and the East Africa. Rather than living within its means, that costly, bloated military has just been too enticing for the mostly chickenhawks that inhabit the top levels of U.S. leadership to refrain from using. This is also the major part of the reason why defense will see minimal cuts as Republicans and Democrats cobble together their bipartisan "grand bargain" to gut Medicare and Social Security. Since the U.S. has by far, the largest military force in the world, it wants to use that force to seize resources when needed rather than put up with any policy of reducing consumption and sharing resources.....and that may just end up being the epitaph of civilization as we know it, since these wars can only go so far before someone starts launching nukes.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Most who are traumatized by the magnitude and scale of death and injury that they have been exposed to, will internalize it and kill themselves - as we are seeing from statistics on suicide showing more returning veterans commit suicide than are killed in action.

Yea...just like dentists, physicians, artists, and security guards who have never seen "combat". The facts are that most veterans do not kill themselves.

But, the war theatre is the playpen of the homicidal maniac; and if they don't advance up the ranks and remain part of the permanent war machine,

So what's Canada's excuse for having a nearly identical overall suicide rate ? Weather ?

[GostHacked]

Yea...just like dentists, physicians, artists, and security guards who have never seen "combat". The facts are that most veterans do not kill themselves.

True, however a new phenomena is that more Iraq war vets have died from suicide than combat in Iraq. The terrorists are laughing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/u-s-vets-commit-suicide-alarming-rate-study-article-1.1253900

A U.S. military veteran commits suicide every 65 minutes, on average, according to a recent study from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

An older, less detailed government analysis reported that about 18 former service members kill themselves each day. But a recent, more precise study of veteran suicides from 1999 to 2010 shows that the number is heartbreakingly higher: 22 deaths per day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/suicides-eclipse-war-deaths-for-us-troops.html?_r=0

The suicide rate among the nation’s active-duty military personnel has spiked this year, eclipsing the number of troops dying in battle and on pace to set a record annual high since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a decade ago, the Pentagon said Friday.

[Guest American Woman]

True, however a new phenomena is that more Iraq war vets have died from suicide than combat in Iraq. The terrorists are laughing.

Why, exactly, are they laughing?

Edited February 6, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

The State didn't because it only takes mental health as seriously as society does, which isn't very much. Unfortunately when society does it's usually misguided and wrong-headed which if listened to and applied results in things getting worse not better.

What's funnier is why his mother didn't feel compelled to check her guns into an armoury as a precaution. Perhaps if society took guns more seriously she would have.

Why is that? Her guns certainly didn’t kill all those children by their own accord.

[cybercoma]

They sure as hell helped.

[Guest Derek L]

They sure as hell helped.

Yet there are upwards of 10 million AR-15s (including M-4s and other derivatives) within the United States, just like Lanza’s mothers Bushmaster, that haven’t killed classrooms of children……….So where is the difference?

[cybercoma]

There is a difference. You just continually ignore the exceptional amount of violence that occurs in America.

[GostHacked]

Why, exactly, are they laughing?

Not surprised I need to spell it out for you.

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

Over 3000 US soldiers have died from combat in Iraq. yet more have died from suicide compared to combat deaths during this last Iraq war When added up, this is more than double the casualties the USA experienced on 9/11.

Terrorists are cheap and easy to train and deploy. US soldiers are expensive to train, equip and transport to the combat zone.

So not only are the terrorists laughing because of the number of deaths, they are also laughing at the amount of money the USA is spending (that they can no longer afford) on this global war on terror.

[Guest Derek L]

There is a difference. You just continually ignore the exceptional amount of violence that occurs in America.

Now is said violence committed by guns or with some “bad people” with guns?

Yes, there is a difference, “your side” wants to get rid of guns, well “my side” would rather get rid of “bad people” that happen to use guns…………

[eyeball]

Derek, do you tell your kids they're bad for developing chickenpox or Parkinson's disease? Would you get rid of them?

[Signals.Cpl]

And the same can’t be said for police?

It can, but the difference is that you can make a standard and enforce it, increase training or any number of other things which when it comes to mass of people owning guns is less than practical. It is one thing to have a police department of 500-50,000 and demanding and maintaining a standard while it is a whole other thing to expect and/or demand a high standard of 50-100 million gun owners.

So guy going to work gets greased by the police, well they’re responding to a nutter with a knife tossing garbage around?

You determine if the incident happened because the police officer is an idiot or lacked the proper level of training. One officer screws up and you can use that as a way to educate and train others to avoid the same problem, this happens with civilians the likelihood of getting something positive out of it is unlikely.

The vast majority of RCMP officers receive several weeks of firearms training at Depot, then a week’s worth prior to their annual qualifications……….Other Municipal Forces are +/- this total usually a week or so………….I recreationally shoot with current and retired LEOs, and some are damn good, but the majority are no better then a casual sport shooter……………..

I am good with firearms as well, but I am the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Canadians in general. The difference between civilians having right to carry a pistol and a police officer carrying a pistol is that you can increase the training and standard as well as frequency of testing while with civilians not so much.

Now in most States, prior to receiving a CCW permit, the applicant has to attended a safety course put on by the local Sheriff’s (or municipal) department…………..And it can be reasoned, that most people that feel the need for a CCW permit, shoot more then one week a year.

Ever thought that shooting at a stationary target is so much different then shooting at a human being who can move and duck and all that fun stuff? The thought that I can carry a pistol and pull it out in a gunfight without knowing who is who and wether they are the good guys, the bad guys or bystanders like myself might lead me to shoot on a first come first serve basis.

Has that ever happened? I would assume the same thing that happens when they arrive and there's plain clothes officers on scene....

I would assume that an undercover police officer would have a way to avoid getting shot by other officers(badge, radio etc) something that a random gun owner might not have.

[Signals.Cpl]

Now is said violence committed by guns or with some “bad people” with guns?

Yes, there is a difference, “your side” wants to get rid of guns, well “my side” would rather get rid of “bad people” that happen to use guns…………

"Your side" wants to get rid of the "bad people" with guns by arming even more people with guns?

[GostHacked]

"Your side" wants to get rid of the "bad people" with guns by arming even more people with guns?

If a crime is being committed against you, and you feel your life is in danger, what would you select?

1 - a knife

2 - a bat

3 - a board with a nail in it.

4 - a firearm.

Why do people insist on always being the victim?

[Signals.Cpl]

If a crime is being committed against you, and you feel your life is in danger, what would you select?

1 - a knife

2 - a bat

3 - a board with a nail in it.

4 - a firearm.

Why do people insist on always being the victim?

If a crime is being committed against you, and you feel your life is in danger, what would you prefer the attacker have?

1 - a knife

2 - a bat

3 - a board with a nail in it.

4 - a firearm.

I have no problem with people having pistols at home my issue is when they start carrying it around and out everyone else in danger. The lower the standard for gun ownership the lower the quality of gun owners the more likely it is for firearms to fall in the hands of undesirable gun owners.

[Guest American Woman]

Not surprised I need to spell it out for you.

Not surprised you would come to such a conclusion - but really, if they are laughing, so what? I think they've done worse.

Over 3000 US soldiers have died from combat in Iraq. yet more have died from suicide compared to combat deaths during this last Iraq war When added up, this is more than double the casualties the USA experienced on 9/11.

Suicide rates are always higher than the death toll on 9-11. Same goes for Canada, with just over 1/10 the population of the U.S. So are the terrorists laughing at everyone who commits suicide in our countries? Or is it just funny when vets commit suicide? And shouldn't the terrorists be embarrassed by their ineptness? - for not having killed more troops?

Terrorists are cheap and easy to train and deploy. US soldiers are expensive to train, equip and transport to the combat zone.

So the value of their lives boils down to how "cheap and easy to train" they are? Terrorists' lives are cheap?

So not only are the terrorists laughing because of the number of deaths, they are also laughing at the amount of money the USA is spending (that they can no longer afford) on this global war on terror.

As I said, perhaps they should be embarrassed because they haven't been able to kill more troops. As for laughing at the amount of money, only if they're clueless and don't realize that we value innocent lives over money. Perhaps you don't realize that, either - with your talk of "terrorists are cheap/US soldiers are expensive."

And for the record, in case you are unaware, all of the vets committing suicide didn't fight in Afghanistan/Iraq; most are over the age of 50. And it's a problem in Canada, too - vets are also committing suicide in Canada. Same as always - in both of our countries. Same as other non-military Americans and Canadians.

Edited February 7, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

... And it's a problem in Canada, too - vets are also committing suicide in Canada. Same as always - in both of our countries. Same as other non-military Americans and Canadians.

Good point.....Canada's rate doubled in a year....and tripled that of the general population. Must be all those laughing terrorists.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/04/18/suicide-rates.html

[GostHacked]

Not surprised you would come to such a conclusion - but really, if they are laughing, so what? I think they've done worse.

They are laughing because more vets are dying from suicide than combat. Think of it as a two for one deal! They laugh because this makes their job easier.

Suicide rates are always higher than the death toll on 9-11. Same goes for Canada, with just over 1/10 the population of the U.S. So are the terrorists laughing at everyone who commits suicide in our countries? Or is it just funny when vets commit suicide? And shouldn't the terrorists be embarrassed by their ineptness? - for not having killed more troops?

What I articulated is that more war vets from Iraq have committed suicide than have the number of people who died on 9/11. This is also more than the number of combat deaths of US solider in Iraq.

So the value of their lives boils down to how "cheap and easy to train" they are? Terrorists' lives are cheap?

Over your head like a 737.

American soldiers are expensive to train and deploy, simple fact. Terrorists require very little infrastructure or funding to get the job done, simple fact. Nowhere was I talking about the value of a person's life.

As I said, perhaps they should be embarrassed because they haven't been able to kill more troops.

I don't think it matters to them if a soldier is dead from a terrorist bullet or if the solider takes his own life. It simply makes their job easier.

As for laughing at the amount of money, only if they're clueless and don't realize that we value innocent lives over money. Perhaps you don't realize that, either - with your talk of "terrorists are cheap/US soldiers are expensive."

If lives were valued over money, Iraq would have never been invaded. However all these casualties are just simply statistics to the higher ups in the military. I think this term is 'acceptable loss'.

And for the record, in case you are unaware, all of the vets committing suicide didn't fight in Afghanistan/Iraq; most are over the age of 50.

I require a cite for this please.

And it's a problem in Canada, too - vets are also committing suicide in Canada. Same as always - in both of our countries. Same as other non-military Americans and Canadians.

I won't argue that point aside that I am talking specifically about war vet deaths.

[GostHacked]

If a crime is being committed against you, and you feel your life is in danger, what would you prefer the attacker have?

1 - a knife

2 - a bat

3 - a board with a nail in it.

4 - a firearm.

Do you really think a criminal gives a crap about gun laws or gun control? I am no fan of playing craps, but I do, I want my dice to be loaded.

I have no problem with people having pistols at home my issue is when they start carrying it around and out everyone else in danger.

If they have a proper carry and conceal license and are properly trained, I do not have an issue with it. It's those criminals that are illegally carrying guns that are the cause of the problem you are talking about.

The lower the standard for gun ownership the lower the quality of gun owners the more likely it is for firearms to fall in the hands of undesirable gun owners.

Criminals don't care what your standards are.