Watercooler

WHAT THE "F" IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE

Tags:
+
0 Votes
Locked

WHAT THE "F" IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE

cmiller5400
http://www.cbsnews .com/8301-201_162-57559261/children-gunman-dead-in-conn-elementary-school-shooting/

(Remove space between cbsnews and the .com)

I'm sitting here crying my eyes out... Seriously, what the **** is wrong with people? Have we no hope left in this world????

My sympathies and prayers to the friends and families of those involved
  • +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I saw it on a g/f's fb while I was picking up my 8 yr old daughter from school; it's just sickening. There can be no serious sane reason for anyone to go off at a school!!!! My heart is breaking for the poor parents that are getting the worst, most gutt renching news a parent could ever get. May God give you all strength through this horrible time

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    if publicizing these tragedies does more harm than good, if it motivates those with an incomprehensible desire for the attention that results from a so-called 'blaze of glory' finish. I guess it's news but really, what's the benefit to the public of trumpeting it, especially those outside the local area?

    Maybe I've just become too callous to be affected any more.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of fame, and that's the worry you raise. The media should report it, but not make the huge song and dance that they do.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    But am not sure how to avoid that.

    The challenge is how to keep weapons out of the hands of crazy people. That's not an easy puzzle to solve.

    I believe one important factor here is violent video games. Just as the Sept 11 hijackers used flight sim software to help them learn to fly, all the incredibly realistic first-person-shooter games are no different.

    If there is ONE thing I would hope that comes from this, it would be to have a grown-up discussion about guns in our society.

    The kneejerk reaction is to ban everything, but we ban drugs, and we banned alcohol...how did those things work out?

    When cars were first invented, on a percentage basis, fatalities were very high. So with driver training, licensing, and technical improvements, this problem was addressed. There are many more cars today and far fewer fatalities, as a percentage of the number of drivers and registered vehicles.

    If America can put a remote-control rover on Mars, surely we can all figure this out....

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    There's almost no politics involved. No one asks the rover's position on ********, or wants to know if returning capsule has immigration paperwork.

    As you noted, complete bans have been ineffective. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, just that we've never managed anything similar in the past. Other countries obviously do it, but there are the questions of size of the US, existing stock and possessions, etc.

    However, I don't think violent video games have much of an effect. They're just the latest in a long string of boogie men going back through violent movies, televised wrestling, comic books, etc. In Salem they though playing witch was a sure fire path to ... sure fire. I imagine someone's parents berated him for peeking through Coliseum walls at gladiatorial games.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    No need to 'check it's papers' :)

    I live in a part of the country where young boys are really 'into' guns. They play 'airsoft' with full camo gear, using VERY realistic weapons that shoot pellets in full auto mode (drives the dog nuts).

    These same kids spend hours playing 'Call of Duty' as well as 'Metro' and whole host of hyper-realistic FPS (first-person-shooter) games. These are not like duck-hunt on Nintendo, these are 3D 'go for the headshot' simulations that give you a small taste of the adrenaline rush that (I imagine) you would have in an actual combat situation.

    For ANY of these kids, if you put a locked and loaded MP5 in their hands, other than the heft of the weapon, they would be completely at ease and, maybe I'm reaching a bit here, if hopped up on drugs or a kid with mental issues could blur the play world with the real world.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    The reason there are fewer fatalities these days is 99.999999999% due to the fact that cars absorb impact and have airbags that reduce the force from inertia on occupants. Even 50 years ago, peopl ewere thrown about like ragdolls in an accident. Sure grandpa loved his old Dodge, "solid and stable, not like these new things that just crumple and collapse when hit!"

    However, I'd MUCH rather be in a car that folds up like an accordion during an accident than one that doesn't. Engineering saved lives, not licencing.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The '59 probably weighs double what the 2009 does, yet the old car crumples like a tin can

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    It's offset, driver's fender to driver's fender. If it was a true head on, the Chevy would have fared much better I think. Then there's side impact which would have been different too. The Chrysler seems to have crumpled well too but is designed to absorb and redirect impact that the cabin doesn't crumple and the engine is pushed down to the ground instead of into the passenger compartment. The Chevy just trashed a fender and then the A pillars were cut in half due to rigid construction, that alone would be enough impact to do in any occupants. It really shows how far we have come though, cars today are a million times safer than those before, I've been saved TWICE from a sure death accident due to specific car construction that was just introduce the year I bought the car. I still love my old muscle cars though.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    like that. Over the years I've seen many crashed cars and they're usually full head on with the centre of both bonnets very close to each other, or the part ons are just the headlight corners clipped, or straight into an inanimate object, or full into the rear, or into the side or corner from the side. Except in the US test crashes like that video I've never seen two cars hit with the full quarter head on like that.

    On another aspect, my father's mid/late 1960s Toyota Crown was designed so that in a series impact with the front of the car the engine dropped out the bottom and the main body for the car rode up and over that while the engine compartment crumpled while absorbing energy. I've looked at a few modern cars of the same size and there's no way the engine can drop out the bottom and the frame etc isn't strong enough to absorb much impact energy at all due to teh cheaper way many are made out of shells welded together.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    But car to roadside tree/lamppost gives a corner crash like that most of the time.
    Sweden started using that in their car security tests. A lot of formerly five star cars got demoted.

    Car to tree is a very frequent source of death, since most car accidents are solo accidents.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    the side as an almost missed or dead in the centre of the bonnet.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    :^0
    Odds are the collisions will occur over the entire range equally.
    The corner collisions are much harder on the structure though.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    And discussing it with your kids is not a good idea either. They may not understand the depth of the issue beyond hearing people were killed on TV. I've seen parents hugging their kids and crying about it, not those involved but just parents who have seen the news. This creates unnecessary trauma for a child. Children are desensitized from TV news where people are shown being killed, they play violent games and are exposed to these realities daily. For them it is an unrealistic world, kids should not be filled with fears and sadness over such issues. No amount of personal awareness would help them avoid such a situation. Having a parent upset and warning about such things is just not needed and makes the issue much worse for them.

    I too had someone scowl at me on the weekend because I basically shrug my shoulders and write it off as a hideous society that I haven't believed in for many years anyway.

    Yes, it is absolutely horrific, it is a devastating time for all involved, parents should never outlive children etc.

    But the more fuss and public outcry it creates, the worse the situation gets as others follow suit to be even bigger and more notorious.

    It's been proven countless times by police forces worldwide that popularity will just breed more of the same. If nobody makes a fuss and it's not publicized, these people without a voice usually seek other avenues for attention.

    It is sad, my heart to goes out to those involved, I can't even begin to imagine if that had happened to my child...but we need to move forward and let police focus on why it happened, how it happened and working on ways to reduce the likeliness of it happening again.

    +
    1 Votes
    JJFitz

    My children were under 7 years old on 9/11. We were advised by school counselors not to have the TV news on. At that age, kids can get confused and think that the incident may be happening over and over.
    I think the same thing applies to this tragedy - especially since the media seems to add footage of other similar killing sprees.
    I think it is OK to discuss the incident with your children so that they know how to react during an emergency but don't dwell on it.
    They already have "lockdown drills" and fire drills in the school.

    We also had fire drills at home when they were young. They still know the drill 10 years later.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    What could possibly motivate someone to murder innocent children? My heart goes out to those that lost their loved ones and to all children, families and the teachers that will have to live with that horrible memory for the rest of their lives.

    Is there anywhere that any of us are safe anymore from the lunatics that walk among us?

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    That it is a Right to be armed and everyone should be carrying?

    See if those 5 year olds could have shot at the intruder not so many may have died.

    What a crock of Shite.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    All of the usual suspects on both sides of the 2nd Amendment have thrown their publicity machines into gear. I'm sure they both have contingency plans and public relations schemes sitting on the shelf for just such an 'opportunity'.

    +
    1 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Using dead children to justify their stances is completely unacceptable in my books.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Is something ONLY the pro gun control people are doing (can you spell Michael Bloomberg?).

    I'm glad you deem it unacceptable.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You, Colin, are down in Australia, and you are obviously "using dead children to justify (your gun control) stances".

    And that's what you just criticized people in the United States for doing.

    (Shaking my head in disbelief.)

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    What Gun Control Stance?

    What have I said about Weapon Control?

    For that matter do you even know what I think of Fire Arms?

    What I really find offensive Joe is that someone will place words in my mouth that where never said or even implied. What happened yesterday your time "maybe by now" was a tragedy and it's unacceptable under any circumstances.

    Doesn't matter if those children where shot, stabbed or run over by a Hijacked 747 killing young children is just pure and simple Unacceptable, what makes it more unacceptable is that they where unrelated so they personally had no way of adversely impacting on the person who killed them..

    What I also find very offensive is that somehow you seem to be justifying the Right to Bear Arms and that there should be no controls on any Nutter who wants to shot the Crap out of a bunch of children because it's their right but in the same breath those same children do not have a Right to Medical Care provided by the State.

    I'm defiantly not under the impression that this is an excuse for anything at all though I do see it being used by the Gun Control Lobby to somehow try to overthrow your Constitution. While I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing it's most defiantly not a Good Thing from the point of view of the Rule of Law having any sort of Knee Jerk Reaction for any event. But by the same token I can also see some idiots claim that arming 5 year olds improves their chances of not being shot and killed because they can return fire.

    Doesn't matter if they are so far below the age to even understand what it is that they are doing it's OK to do it. Anything that seeks to Pervert the LAW to ones own ends is what I most defiantly find unacceptable. If there are changes to be made to any Legal Document particularly something as Important as the Countries Constitution it needs to be done away from any Hysteria and with a well run Public Education Campaign.

    Relying on Emotion is never acceptable to make changes to anything let alone something as important as the Constitution.

    As for the person you mentioned above I don't have a clue who or what they are or if they are male or female or what they are on about though from what you have posted above I would assume that they have something to do with Fire Arm Control Proposals, however if they would use something like this incident to advance their cause that in my books speaks volumes of why they should be ignored.

    As for weapon control it's impossible as anything can be used as a weapon something as simple as a Ball Point Disposable pen is an ideal weapon in the right hands and the possibility of outlawing something like that doesn't even rate a mention.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I quoted you verbatim.

    Did I misunderstand the intent behind the words you did utter? The ones I quoted?

    Now that's entirely possibly; I'll concede it's probable, based on your reply; and I'll even go so far as saying, What else is new?, based on our history in the TR Water Cooler.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    One nut tries to **** up an airplane with a bomb in his shoe, and now we all have to take our shoes off at airports. Many nuts kill hundreds, and nothing changes.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    didn't regard shoes as 'necessary to the security of a free state'.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    That was the well-trained militia.
    Where is that militia, by the way?

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Helping rebuild...somewhere.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    for some reason that I don't fully understand, last year the Supreme Court ruled the 'militia' clause wasn't relevant to firearm laws.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    According to the sophistry of the pro-gun at-the-expense-of-everything-else crowd, "A well-regulated militia..." is not a qualifying clause, but a clarifying clause.

    +
    2 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    it is reasonable to refer to the entire country as if everyone in it holds the same opinion on this subject. I'm equally sure that the US is the only country in the world where people on both sides of tragedies exploit them for political benefit.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    I don't think America holds the patent on idiocy :)

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    This event has done two things: it's caused Dems to grow a pair, and it is exposing the GOP influence of the gun lobby.

    While Joe Scarborough may be now a RINO, he was rated A+ by the NRA for his stance on guns when he was in Congress. A staunch libertarian all the way and an avowed conservative Republican.

    Earlier this week he gave a mea-culpa on-air where he said he was wrong, that the safety of our children are the most important thing, and that this event changed him, and changed America. Call me naive, but I belive that.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    But in doing so, you look to the wrong cause.

    Cause and effect - people play the game, putting one or the other (cause or effect) in either the leading or the following position depending on what point is trying to be made (just like they do in the global warming debate - they mix up cause and effect). Is the proliferation of guns the cause?

    Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? The answer to that question has absolutely nothing to do with guns, yet that's the "cause" so many people identify with. But it's not the "cause" at all; it's only the scapegoat.

    Go ahead, Colin. Try to answer this question without your usual "nutter" kind of outlook.

    Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? What caused the rise in such things happening?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You live in a country where it is possible for people to legally own semi-automatic weapons.

    Regardless of whether incidents such as the recent shooting are on the increase - and I don't know whether they are, or not - to narrow down your view on "cause" in the way that you do is ridiculous and, honestly, somewhat disturbing.

    Fot a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen.

    Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... you sure can come up with some doozies!

    Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

    Gee, Neil. What a brilliant observation.

    I guess we can conclude, then, that the prevailing mentality might go something like this. "Oh my, there's a gun. I think I'll pick it up and shoot someone."

    And another Neil Doozie:

    "For a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen. "

    Therefore, let's systematically, as a society, eliminate the "means" people use to commit crimes; then we can start, as a society, to start addressing those motives people have to commit crime; and then, we can monitor everyone to prevent them from taking advantage of opportunity. Yeah, that's the ticket!

    You propose eliminating the "means" so that the crime cannot be committed? Are you kidding me? (And it presupposes that eliminating the "means" is even possible, which it's not.)

    In what other crime is the "means" EVER blamed for the crime, and/or EVER suggested that it be eliminated from becoming available so that said crime cannot be committed?

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I am having a psychotic episode. I have been visited by God who has told me that Wattenden Primary School, Croydon,is to be my target. It is Tuesday afternoon at 2:30pm and I am standing outside of the school with my semi-automatic rifle with its military magazine and four hundred rounds of ammunition.

    But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one. I cannot go into the school and shoot the children.

    We should both address the motives, of course. But we in the UK and other societies with strict gun laws have long since addressed the means so that the probability of the juxtaposition of a psychotic killer and a weapon that permits him or her to kill rapidly and indiscriminately is reduced as close to zero as we can get it.

    As for your final question, I do believe that in both our societies, "going equipped for burglary" or its equivalent, is a crime; the means IS the crime. But that's irrelevant becuase obviously - I thought - I was not "blaming" guns but, to outsiders such as me, the idea that someone with a mental illness has such easy access, not just to guns, but to assault weapons is beyond our ability to comprehend.

    "The right to keep and bear arms". Whatever...

    +
    0 Votes
    Who Am I Really

    re: "But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one."

    whether there is a gun in every house or in none in any house
    a nutter will find a way to get one (or more) if they so desire

    +
    0 Votes

    But

    dogknees

    People usually don't stay angry for that long. Murder is usually, as far as I'm aware, a spur of the moment thing. If you can't access the means to carry out your desires immediately, you may well calm down and see sense. If the means are easily obtainable, you may act before you calm down and think.

    Obviously there are exceptions.

    I agree that gun-control will not remove the desire to carry out the act, and think that's where we should be looking for the solution, but there's very little political will to address problems this deeply embedded in our societies. Especially if it means we have to change our behavior.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    At this point in time, I have NO IDEA how to go about getting a gun if I want one. I wouldn't know where to start.

    Of course, we can't stop criminals holding illegal guns and it's possible that, if I were intending to commit a crime, that I could eventually find out. But I cannot simply take the guns belonging to a member of my family, or a neighbour, or an acquaintance because they do not have any.

    This discussion, for me, is about the psychotically deranged indivual, be that psychotic episode triggered by schitzophrenia or bipolar disorder or physical causes such as drugs, alcohol or a brain tumour, not being able to access the means to rapidly and indiscriminately slaughter.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    Where I live in the States, I could drop into any of dozen retail outlets on the way home from the office and pick up as many new pistols or even semi-automatic assault rifles and as much ammo as I can carry.

    Of course the 'straw purchasers' do just that, buy-em in Georgian, sell-em in NYC or Mexico, but I digress...

    If I wanted to get something illegal...let's say I wanted a kilo of Heroin. To be honest, I would not know where to start....bars in seedy part of town? Online? Even then, the illegality of the item means I could get shot or arrested walking into a sting operation.

    In the UK, getting any sort of weapon would be like me getting my kilo of heroin.

    +
    0 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    You better do it before the UK bans them!

    http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

    What's next?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    “We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”

    “The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,”

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    to my American (and other Nationalities) friends if I offend you at this point....I'm Canadian (and proud of it) but for the life of me, I do not believe in the right to bear arms.The right to own a gun for legal hunting and protection of one's home, yes. I don't have guns in my house, nor do I want them here. I made Darryl remove his rifles before I moved in, I want nothing to do with them.

    So my thoughts on this are, having easy access to guns and being P'Oed at my parents because I can't have my own way likely was justified is this sick kid's head before he went off. And nothing makes me more aggrivated than when they turn coward and kill themselvles instead of facing up. Yes, I'M friggin' mad!!!!!!!!! Watching the news last night made me cry, my heart is so broken for all the folks involved.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    But I should point out that in recent history the worst what is commonly called Gun Crime was committed in Norway which has some of the tightest Gun Control Laws in the world.

    What happened my time yesterday in the US was a utter tragedy but what happened in Norway even without the bombing by the idiot where 95 people where shot dead is beyond reason.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    yesterday was indeed tragic...Norway was beyond comprehension. There is no reason I find acceptable either that can explain those types of things; it`s just overwhelmingly emotional for me

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    6 years old, what a tragedy. What has to snap in your head to make you want to go kill small children. They had just moved there from Canada.

    Possibly even more tragic is the relative frequency of these attacks.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Hate feeds hate, kills more, builds more hate. If the hate doesn't kill you, it infects you.
    How do you cure hate?

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    No officials have even speculated yet on his 'reason', even off the record. His brother has talked to the police and said the family suspected he may have had mental illness.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I hear it sooo often in mass shootings or other types of violent crimes that it seems to me that it`s just a scapecoat. And it bothers me even more when they then shoot themselves as well. Sure, easy way out if you ask me.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    for the value of others.
    Whether it's men (usually) killing their spouses and children, then themselves, or idiotic teens who think they're special... they all involve not valuing other people for what they are.
    Some people think their kids are their property.
    Some people think other people are obstacles.

    Call it what you want, I call it hate.

    +
    1 Votes
    robo_dev

    Education, in general, helps to expose people to all kinds of other people, so perhaps the college student from a rural town sees for himself that people of other races and religions all don't have horns.

    Strong families means parents who actually parent, and can say the word NO. This also means, hopefully, passing on a bit of judgment, moral values, and self-esteem, which altogether should result in well-rounded citizens.

    Time heals all wounds. Years ago a British paramilitary soldier cut open the jacket of my grandfather in Northern Ireland with the bayonet of his rifle. My grandad saw firsthand the wrong end of a gun, and came to America as a result. He hated anything and anyone British, and even really tried to instill that in me, but I refused. Over time, from generation to generation, hatred will fade.

    +
    2 Votes
    AV .

    Maybe we should be looking at where these sick people get the ideas in their head to begin with instead of the weapon of choice. Look at some of the movies that are out. Look at the violent video games that some people play. Its all gore, all the time. It glorifies horrific violence and evil in such a graphic way. People that are sick and antisocial that watch the movies or play those games all the time aren't mentally equipped to treat it as just a game or a work of fiction. I think they find empowerment in the media that they don't have in their real life and at some point they cross a line where it seems like a good idea to act that out in real life. Probably that decision is triggered by a real life event where they feel rejected or wronged in some way.

    Its not only guns, its knives, bombs, fires, you name it. How do you prevent someone from making a bomb or using a knife or setting someone on fire or throwing acid on someone, etc., etc. etc.? The profile of the people that commit these mass murders is always the same. They are lonely, isolated, angry and anti-social with deep-seated hatreds. Maybe they are religious zealots. Maybe they are disgruntled employees that just lost their job. Maybe they hate the government. Until we figure out a way to deal with people like that, the killings will continue.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I can't see the US ever taking away the right to bear arms in this country and they shouldn't. That isn't going to solve the problem. A person with the intent to kill people with guns will just buy them illegally. Or, maybe they'll use a bomb instead or set the building on fire to inflict mass casualties. If they have the intent, they'll find the way.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    The Wacko's from making fake posts to places like Tweeber and My Face making out that they are the gunman and victims.

    The Idiot who did the shooting was pretty bad but the Wacko's who are now impersonating the people involved are really sick and need to be treated for their misguided ways.

    Hopefully the Investigating Officers will be given unlimited resources to catch and treat these Sick people.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    The primary "sick idea" being that any degree of emotion is an excuse for harming others. It doesn't matter how angry/upset/emotional/... you are, it is no excuse.

    This is going to be tough to root out.

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    Everyone gets angry, upset and emotional sometimes, but for most people those moods pass and venting about the problem is all thats needed. Most people would never think of dealing with these moods with a gun.

    There are some "sick" people though that never get over being angry, upset and emotional. They never talk about it, instead they keep it in and one day it all comes out at once in a disastrous way. Its a lifetime of hurt for some of these people.

    No matter how tough it is, we need to root out why some people are like that and what we can do about it.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Who remembers the names of the victims?
    And who remembers their murderers.
    Priorities, people.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    What is the premise of these games?

    You walk around dressed like a combat soldier with an automatic weapon and kill anyone and everyone...sound familiar?

    The Sept 11 hijackers used Microsoft Flight Simulator to help them train. Should we ban all Microsoft products? (well maybe), but the point is that computer simulators are a valuable teaching tool.

    +
    1 Votes
    dogknees

    Is that it's not the real world. To me that's the point, I can do things I cannot or would not do in the real world without harm to myself or others.

    Flight sims are the classic case, No one would attempt to fly a Jumbo under the Golden gate bridge in real life, but it's kind of cool to try in a sim.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    No one would attempt to fly a Jumbo under the Golden gate bridge in real life, but it's kind of cool to try in a sim. .

    But up until twelve years ago, people were saying that about flying airplanes into buildings...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    ...if I had a Jumbo jet. Would be a gas, probably a big explosion too but, if you made it, WHAT A RUSH!!!

    +
    1 Votes

    ?

    aidemzo_adanac

    "You walk around dressed like a combat soldier with an automatic weapon and kill anyone and everyone...sound familiar?"

    I take it you've never played a first person shooter then. Most high-end FPS games have very specific tasks and objectives, beyond randomly killing everything you see. Killing mass people, the wrong people or even popping off a shot at the wrong time gets you killed.

    Face it today's society is blatantly ignorant, both the good ones and the bad. When I was a kid, I know that hitting someone in the head with a frying pan was not a realistic thing to pull off. I didn't draw a big black tunnel on a cliff face and wait for a truck to try and drive through it. Strapping on a giant ACME rocket was in cartoons and I knew the difference without someone censoring it, making it unavailable to enjoy or slapping a PG13 tag on it (which just boosts sales to underage kids anyway. Didn't work for music doesn't work for games or movies either).

    We live in a society that gets weaker and more pathetic each and every day. We seek out the wrong solutions to issues as Band Aids, not valid solutions. Someone commits suicide, we put up a sign not to jump and kill yourself. Someone gets shot and we consider changing gun laws (even though the gun was illegally obtained to begin with). Someone kills a group of school children and we start by trying to figure out what mental deficiency excuse we can attach to it.

    Face it, our society creates these issues, reacts inappropriately when things go wrong and simply perpetuate the issue, creating more of the same. I say anyone under 21 get;s their act together or gets put down. Start again with some real parenting, some real mentors and some REAL ways for a child to see value in life. Besides going home and gaming every day because you weren't good enough to hang out with the cool kids.

    Society is simply phuqued.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What is the reason for the American obsession with guns? Why do guns have an emotional and intellectual importance that we over here can only stand and wonder at and not understand or empathise in the slightest? We have common history and values in so many ways but, in this matter, we are as far apart as it is possible to be.

    Is it the "cult of the individual"? Yet I see Americans as more homogeneous and less individual than my own culture.

    Is it because the nation was born in armed revolution? Yet that is the case with other countries and nowhere else is the cult of the weapon so obvious. Anyway, that was then, this is now.

    Your history? A settler nation that had to both impose and maintain its domination over indigenous people to acquire and defend land and feed itself in a frontier state? Again, that was then, this is now.

    The constitution? That's another obsession that I cannot comprehend. The idea that a "right", defined as a right in the eighteenth Century might be taken from you causes apoplexy. As someone who does not have that partuclar right, does not miss it and honestly does not want it, I am (yet again) left scratching my head.

    Fear? This one, I can grasp at and, maybe, understand. Everybody has a gun so I have to have a gun? But that does not explain the obsession with firearms and it certainly does not explain how the USA produces "Preppy" female primary school teachers who own semi-automatic weapons.

    If I were to take away your gun, you white, middle-class American, what would upset you most about my action?

    I'm listening to the radio this morning and, obviously, the major news item is the Newtown massacre and the line that has made me stop and wonder is "one of the worst school massacres in American history". There is a league table of school massacres? I cannot comprehend how there can be a massacre at a school and NOTHING IS DONE. And so, there is another one...

    The logic is so obvious. You are locked in a room with a homicidal maniac. Would you prefer it if he or she had a gun, or they didn't?

    Yes, I know, if YOU had the gun... But that's not my question

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". This banal statement conveniently ignores the fact that people can kill people far easier with guns than almost anything else and that, in a country with high levels of inequality, poverty and segregation, such as America, they are more likely to do so.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Your illustration of being locked in a room with a homicidal maniac. Would one prefer it if he or she had a gun, or they didn't?

    A rhetorical question, to be sure- and a really stupid and misleading one. Who could argue with your conclusion that it would be better if said homicidal maniac did not have a gun or access to a gun. I think that falls under the DUH! category.

    Therefore what?

    Therefore, according to Neil, if NOBODY has any guns, then the homicidal maniac can't get one. Gee, neither can Neil when the homicidal maniac whispers in his ear, I'll get you later, you bloody Red Coat! Another time, another day...... and (hehehe) you won't be able to defend yourself!"

    I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who will use them for murder. But the sweeping solution of keeping guns out of all people's hands isn't acceptable.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    But it somewhat describes your society where homicidal maniacs both can and do easily - it seems to the outside observer - gain posession of guns. That's my rather obvious point.

    I'm lost for a word to describe the sheer quantity of guns available in your country and I really need someone to explain to me how you arrived at where you are in that respect.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    to me anything outside of a hunting rifle and maybe a small handgun is just asking for some sort of trouble. Who in their right mind needs a friggin' glock in their house? Semi automatic weapons are meant for war, not protecting or hunting. And the damned well need to be locked up if you have them in your home where your kids can not have easy access to them.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Skys, I suspect you don't know how even that line seems bizzarre to me. I'm really trying to get an idea as to how the US is where it is. Handguns aren't used for hunting. Their only purpose is to kill people.

    Speaking personally, the notion that I could have something in mt hand that could, with trivial effort on my part, kill somebody instantly fills me with dread. I guess that most Americans would think me stupid; posession of a handgun protects us, they say, from random assault. No, it doesn't. It only works if you shoot first. Without thinking.

    Statistics show that most gun murders at home are perpetrated not by an intruder, but by a member of the family or an acquaintance. Common sense says that a squabble is less likely to be resolved by compromise if there is no gun to end it quickly.

    The incidence of suicides is far higher in American homes which possess guns than in those which do not. A young person in the grip of overwhelming unhappiness in the UK may contemplate putting an end to it all. But using a knife takes great courage and is messy and painful; gas and pills are unreliable; and all three are so slow that there is time to think again; to cry for help.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    it bothers me as well. I don't believe in guns but there are places in the world where people do need to protect what they have. But...not in your everyday suburbia. I too could not imagine having a tool of any sort in my hand that I would turn into a weapon to hurt someone.

    Canadians own guns, don't get me wrong, but we damn well keep them under lock and key where our kids (or anyone else by that matter) can't get at them. Not in shoe boxes in our closets or under our beds where enquisitive children can find them.

    Suicide is hard for me to grasp. I've suffered depression on and off for the last 15 yrs but the thought of hurting my children and family by taking my own life is too overwhelming. It bothers me that those that do these terrible things like what happened in Conn. this past week, then turn their guns on themselves and take their own lives; it's cowardly.

    I think people have given up on the idea of an oral compromise and have given in to the idea of "it's my way or no way" using weapons of choice as an end to their means.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    True, in fact there are more guns, per capita, in Canada than in the USA. Updated: When we had a similar discussion a few years back there were more guns per capita in Canada, not so these days it seems. I guess all the wildlife is dead and it's just down to a handful of whales and whatever fish the American boats didn't come and take south.

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    Many people own guns in the US for recreational purposes. Handguns, target pistols and the like are used at shooting ranges. Its a sport.

    Sure, having a handgun also provides protection, if it is ever needed, but the majority of gun owners understand that owning a gun carries a great responsibility. They know how to use the gun and store it properly.

    There are many rural areas in the US where owning a gun is a necessity for self defense. There is no big police presence to depend on, you're on your own. Sometimes the perpetrator is an animal and not a human. I live in a remote location in the woods. I've seen bear, big cats and lots of other wildlife right in my yard. I wouldn't feel safe if I didn't have some kind of weapon to protect myself, if I needed it. Theres no one coming to save me.

    Some people like to collect guns as a hobby. Thats why they have so many of them. Theres nothing sinister about that. Its fun to take them to the range and shoot them on occasion.

    Another thing to consider is that criminals never buy guns legally to begin with. You could have an assault weapon ban for the legal gun owners, but there is no way to control what the criminals can get their hands on.

    I think the real problem here is how to identify those that are anti-social misfits and try to get them the right kind of help before they do something bad. In the cases of the Colorado shooter and school shooter in Connecticut, everyone around them seemed to know that these people were not right, but didn't know how to deal with them properly. James Holmes, the Colorado gunman, wasn't helped by therapy. The US needs to have a candid conversation about how to help these types of individuals. They really are a danger to all of us left to their own devices.

    Sure, we can put the assault weapon ban back in effect, but that won't solve the problem. It didn't in the past and won't in the future.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    for having more than 1 Fire Arm. What stops a bear is overkill for many other animals and what would stop most dangerous smaller Wildlife is only going to Peeve Off a Bear.

    Though a Hand Gun is still probably not the best thing to try to use, Rifles are most defiantly the thing I would want though I very much doubt that I would need a SLR and a 30 round mag.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Why? "Handguns, target pistols and the like are used at shooting ranges. Its a sport."

    Practice killing people? Yeah I've watched Top Gun, I've been to a range a few times etc. It was fun, I enjoyed it, but it didn't change my life for better or worse. Can't do it anymore? Oh well, c'est la vie, I'll buy a soccer ball instead.

    " I wouldn't feel safe if I didn't have some kind of weapon to protect myself,"

    That doesn't fall under gun control though. If you are not a nutcase and are looking for a rifle to protect against wildlife, even gun "control" laws would allow it, just as they do anywhere else..

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    I would hope I didn't p*** off the bear with it. Actually, I scared a bear off making noise by beating on my pots and pans and yelling at it. Its pretty scary because their nails are as long as my fingers. Thankfully, I don't see too many bears, but every now and then they are there looking in on my mud porch. Its scary.

    Most of what I get here are nasty feral cats and other small wildlife. We've had a big cat on occasion, but they usually just move on. I've had some sick animals that decided my yard is the best place to die and I just let nature take its course with them.

    I live in a nature preserve so this is what you get. I can live with that and definitely do not need a machine gun or the like, but guns are necessary in this environment in case you need them.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I understand, that's warranted. You have the chance of being attacked by sick/wild animals, you need to have something to personally protect yourself. It's folks that live in everyday suburbia that feel they need to be "packing a piece" whilst they pick up their children from school.

    It's horrible what happened in Conn. and it has broken my heart and taken away a bit of trust in society, but I'm inclined to wonder why the young man that did this travasty could so easily get his hands on such weapons in the first place. I would like to believe that his mother (God rest her soul as well) had the guns under lock and key and the ammo under separate lock and key.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Aside from the more urban areas in the US, a lot of America is pretty rural. I live in New Jersey and you would never think there were rural areas here, but there are. Everyone has guns where I live and we have the lowest crime rate in all of the state. We don't carry them, but the mentality here is so much different. Its farm country. People hunt here. It isn't uncommon to see people with weapons.

    His mother was a gun person and probably took good care to keep them locked up because she knew her son couldn't be trusted with the weapons. He supposedly shot her while she slept and then he probably was able to gain access to the weapons. I don't think she would have ever given him access without her supervision.

    He was smart and knew enough to destroy his computer hard drive as well, which isn't that easy to do. Hard drives are encased very well. I think he really planned for the whole event. He wanted to kill his mother, but I don't understand why he murdered all of the children. The only thing I can think of is that he hated the school and they were just random victims.

    In Connecticut and other more urban cities in the Northeast, guns are pretty much banned. We have the strictest gun laws in the country in the Northeast and it didn't matter. I still can't believe what happened.

    I think Adam Lanza wanted to make a statement by killing all of the children. He wanted to make people suffer to pay for his suffering in life.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The most wildlife I see is if the cute neighbor lady walks her dog :)

    +
    0 Votes

    AV

    aidemzo_adanac

    I think you probably were getting at that he had acquired a handgun SOMEWHERE, not that it would be hard to do because I can get a gun here if I wanted one (legal or not). But I found it a bit funny to read
    "He supposedly shot her while she slept and then he probably was able to gain access to the weapons."

    Chicken and egg thing comes to mind there. :)
    Back to back they faced each other, turned around and shot one another.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Sure, he could have gotten a gun if he didn't use his mother's guns. He couldn't legally buy a handgun because he isn't old enough (only 20), but he was in possession of his 24-year-old brother's ID. Any gun show or a private seller would have sold him a weapon. Also, like you said, he could also get a gun illegally, no questions asked, no ID needed. Money talks, and it sounds like he had plenty of that.

    Even if he didn't have guns, he could have used a bomb or burned the building down. The bottom line is that he had the intent to kill.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    We shouldn't do anything to restrict their ability to turn intent into action?

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    We already have 300+ gun laws on the books and that didn't stop the crime from happening. Do you really think another gun law will solve the problem? You and I both know the government isn't going to round up everyone's weapons, so whats the use of yet another law.

    Sure, you can ban large clips or canisters and place more restrictions on gun sales at gun shows, but I don't see how that would have prevented this crime.

    Everyone knew this guy wasn't right in the head and yet he was allowed to be part of society for years with everyone looking the other way. He should have been given some type of mental help when he was younger. I think we, as a society, need to focus our attention on how we treat the mentally ill and what the best course of action is for people like that in our society. I also think we should take a good, hard look at the kind of movies we watch and video games we play. Do we really need video games like Kindergarten Killers? Who among us thinks thats a fun game to play? We truly are a sick society if thats what some people find entertaining.

    http://www.polygon.com/2012/12/21/3792168/kindergarten-killer

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    And no law is going to stop every crime. But to argue that we shouldn't make it more difficult for the people who might commit such acts because it won't completely stop them is like arguing we shouldn't have laws at all because people break the law.

    I agree with you 100% on the mental health issue. The problem there is we became so worried about the rights of the mentally ill, we forgot about everybody else's right to not live in fear.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    And nobody cuts costs because they're worried about people's rights.
    It was deemed (across the entire western world) too costly to keep funding mental hospitals as the treatments available began to actually be effective, rather than the torture/storage that used to be in effect.
    We're all to blame for letting that happen.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Hey, we're gluttons for "stuff". It's a factopinguess that Americans have more of everything per capita. Why should guns be an exception? We have more cars and televisions and telephones and ipods and ipads and computers and golf clubs and this and than and ........

    Therefore, unless you compare the numbers of ALL things we have "more of", isolating only guns is misleading.

    Why does a guy need one hundred guns, you might ask? I don't know; and it's none of my business. Maybe for the same reason Jay Leno wants to have one hundred cars.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You logic gymnastics are breathtaking.

    It's absolutely a fact that the US has more legal guns per capita than any other nation. The figures are freely available. And more, far more, people are killed, per capita, in the US by legal guns - homicide, accident or suicide - than any comparable Western country. These figures are also freely available.

    So, do I attribute this to your "gluttony" for "stuff"? I don't think I do.

    What is the response to the recent tragedy? "Let's arm the teachers."

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And that's what we get when people always run to government (either federal, and/or state, and/or county, and/or city, and/or local) with the task of coming up with all of the solutions to all of the problems for all of the people all of the time.

    Okay, a stretch connecting logic and logistical.....

    and a bit of a tangent from the original topic.....

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Obviously any country with more citizens that own guns will have a higher homicide by gun rate. It's about as simple as logic gets in that respect.

    But the rate is not proportional to other countries with a lot of guns.

    Yemen and Switzerland have more guns per 100 people than the US, however the homicide by handgun rate doesn't even make the top 40 list, where the US is third.

    I think it's the proportions that make everyone stunned when they see the violence by firearm rate in the US. Sure you have more guns but the number of homicides by handgun is staggering. There are other extremes, such as South Africa where they have fewer guns but an immensely high number of deaths by guns.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    We have different word views.

    Neil wants to prevent homicidal maniacs from obtaining guns. Maxwell wants to prevent homicidal maniacs from obtaining guns.

    Neil, therefore, wants to eliminate guns from even existing (maybe an exaggeration, but for effect); Maxwell, on the other hand, doesn't want to infringe on the majority of the population who does not fit the description of homicidal maniacs by eliminating guns from existance, and would prefer seeking solutions that might identify potential homicidal maniacs (although that could be a very slippery slope as well), and/or seek solutions to protect the innocent from those homicidal maniacs.

    If I had to make the call and come up with a solution in my little isolated corner of the world, and I had to decide: pass a law banning all guns, or arm and train my kid's teacher.

    I say to forget about the "building self esteem" classes the teachers have to take, and instead send them to get trained so they can defend the kids left in their care. Maybe Mary Poppins, the teacher, should get some Rambo training.

    Neil's World View: I want government to defend and protect me.

    Maxwell's World View: I want government to protect and guarantee my right (endowed upon me by my creator, not Neil's government) to defend myself, my family, and my property.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    if you mean God, did not tell you to mass murder people with whatever tool of your choice....protect, yes, but you sure as frig don't need any more than one small handgun or a baseball bat. As for your property, put up an electric fence. If you need more than that, then move because you're obviously in too violent a place to be raising children anyway.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Is defined however one would care to - from God ... to god ... to Mother Nature ... to whatever else someone wants to conjure up. Point being, it ain't government.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    Maxwell's World View: I want government to protect and guarantee my right (endowed upon me by my creator, not Neil's government) to defend myself, my family, and my property. I'm asking...what's yours? because either way you look at it, i'm sure that the right to own semi automatic guns, or anything beyond what's necessary to protect what's yours, wasn't their intent

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It doesn't matter how I define my creator. But it does matter that you try to decide what may or may not be needed or necessary for another person, especially if it trumps what that person may deem needed and necessary for himself.

    Regardless of the merits of one's argument, the accuracy of one's statistics, or whatever, Liberty is the ultimate trump card in America, and if any given solution to any given problem violates ANYONE'S Liberty, then it's going down the wrong path. And it's not up to me to tell you what the right one is; but Lady Liberty will sternly remind people when they're treading down hers.

    It's obviously a concept some people simply can't grasp (and/or are unwilling to let Liberty's chips fall where they may) - thus, the world-view difference. And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.)

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I’m not trying to decide what a person needs, but in what necessity would it require having a semi automatic weapon in your home if you aren’t a law enforcement agent or part of the armed forces? And I bet they lock their guns up at the end of the day.
    Lady Liberty was a gift from the French to celebrate America’s freedom to be free from oppression of other nations, not to be used as a “reason” to have the right to bear arms against one another.
    I’m not quoting statistics; I’m just giving my opinion...as do you. I’m not sure you have different world opinions, but you certainly have your own, as do I. Liberty is freedom; if you think it means something more, I’ll entertain your thoughts.
    Common sense is the ultimate trump card. You demand the freedom to own semi automatic weapons; but for what reason? And I don’t understand how Liberty’s (freedom’s) chips could fall where they may...huh? Liberty is freedom...nothing more.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.)

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    exactly what you think it is?" And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.) " Enlighten us...

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It would be both pointless and a waste of time - at least here and now.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    you're right, you have no need to explain yourself,your responses the last couple days say it all. You typically talk in circles in such a way to just confuse people, or yourself. Either way, I'm done with you on this topic. Maybe I'll play more next time...or not...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I saw the hook and wasn't going to bite because I think I know your stand in life, well enough not to question it anyway.

    My creators are my mother and father. They are real, I have seen them and that, biology mixed with a story I refused to hear in full, was how I was created.
    As for "Faith", I have faith in myself to do what's right, and my family to help guide and teach me, that's about it. If i can't rely on myself or family, I don't look to the unknown and simply have 'faith' that some other force/power will see me through.

    So I guess that means I believe I have a creator and I also have faith, just not in a specific, religious way.
    Funny though, I had a nice man knock my door and hand me a pamphlet one Sunday morning, he seemed to think I had neither faith nor belief in creation. I found it quite odd, seeing as I know for a fact that my parents created me (I was born on the table in my dad's pub, it was in real life and everything). He seemed a bit baffled so I thanked him for his pamphlet and politely closed the door.
    I wonder how he got a job selling faith and belief in creation if he didn't even understand how I was created?

    +
    3 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Bit of a problem, here. My "Creator" didn't endow me with any rights whatsoever. My Creator is an impersonal Un iverse that doesn't give a damn. Apparently, we are all supposed to have certain "self-evident rights". (Which are nothing of the sort. Just because someone else says they are, doesn't make it so.) And then we go on from there.

    All rights - and I think some people are a little obsessed with "rights" - have either been given or taken away, depending on perspective, by collections of men with or without my agreement.

    You know, you still haven't answered my question as to how and why there is an obsession with weapons within a significant tranche of US society when it's patently obvious that many, many people are dead who would not be dead if you had kept the lid on it even a little bit. Maybe by not allowing the ban on the private ownership of assault weapons to lapse.

    Abd to answer your question, I am sufficiently defended by a police force (who don't routinely have guns) and armed forces (especially if we could get them back from illegal Wars and keep them out of Iran and syria), under the rule of law. I do not believe that I or the children that I know have more than the remotest chance in our entire lives of being menaced by a firearm, let alone shot.

    And am I happy about that? Oh, yes. They do it and I don't have to. I have the example of the USA to make my mind up on that one. Can I put this more simply. Wanting to own (and practice with and teach your children to own and practice with) a firearm is, in most civilised societies, regarded as weird and anti-social. And the tens of thousands of firearm deaths in the USA each year are the reason why we think this way.

    I certainly do not need to own a weapon in the expectation that my government may threaten me with armed force. What is THAT all about!

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    On people being obsessed with "rights". I agree. Most people, however, have no idea what they are, what they aren't, what always comes with them (responsibility), where they come from, how they can be denied, etc.

    Point being, however, is that natural rights are not endowed by governments or man.

    I won't argue that many people freely give up those rights to government because they don't want to accept the inherent responsibility that comes with it.

    The question you asked that I didn't answer: ".... how and why there is an obsession with weapons within a significant tranche of US society when it's patently obvious that many, many people are dead who would not be dead if you had kept the lid on it even a little bit."

    You pick whichever answer suits your fancy.

    A. I don't have an answer.
    B. I don't need to provide an answer.
    C. The different world-view premise of your question makes it impossible to answer.
    D. I don't know and I don't care.
    E. All of the above.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    It is because there is such a cultural divide on this, because I truly do not understand, that I was asking. You choose not to try to explain, I cannot make you, this conversation is done. Please don't reply to any further posts I make on this subject and I won't respond to any of yours lest we both waste our time.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    If somebody here challenged somebody else to a duel :)

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as long as we argue with words and not lead, I guess that's a start.

    +
    2 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Tighter gun control laws is seen as a sweeping solution to keep guns out of ALL people's hands? How so?

    Canada has gun control laws, its still not hard to get a gun at all, if you are an upstanding citizen with no criminal an mental history. Who else would you warrant legally owning a firearm?

    "Just because I am American, I should be able to own a gun, without further hesitation", is not a very clever mentality at all.

    IT's not the people who legally own and responsibly have guns that I see as a problem, it's those that illegally acquire said guns from the responsible owners that are the problem. Just like everything you are taught in life from a very young age, one bad apple spoils the cider for everyone.

    Red coats though? LOL, c'mon Max! You were dismissing Neil's example as a ludicrous.

    "I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who will use them for murder."

    If so many illegal, many stolen in robberies or from parents gun cabinets, night stands, cupboards, cutlery drawers and everywhere else Americans keep guns 'handy just in case' how doesn't that raise a red flag for you?

    It's not the responsible owners, it's the criminals that steal their guns. It's not that YOU are a shoplifter but you still pay more for goods because others do shoplift.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Even the much reviled Denmark doesn't ban guns.
    Now, carry licenses are hard to get, sure enough. But if you have a hobby that requires a firearm, you can get one.
    Self-defense is not seen as a valid reason in most cases because violent crime isn't a real threat to most people.

    If someone has a fatwa on them or has angered the Mossad, then they can probably get a gun permit and a carry license. Not that the Mossad will give a damn about a handgun. If someone is on CIA's rendition list ... well, that remains to be seen. After all, Denmark isn't like Sweden who lets the CIA grab people on Swedish soil (Stay away, Assange).

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I think it's just a common sense of entitlement that they feel will be lost if control is increased. A sense of entitlement is something I see killing society, everywhere not just the US. People feel they are DUE something from the government, they are ENTITLED to this or that because others may have it etc. In short, people are really f****n lazy these days and don't feel they need to work to earn anything.

    I find that people in the US believe they are the only ones with the most basic of human rights, which we all have. Freedom of speech, you never hear about it until some American whines that he can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, which is not what freedom of speech means at all.

    Right to bear arms, yeah we have that right in Canada too, you have it in England, if you pass a background check and wait a while so they can determine if you are prone to killing people randomly.

    Freedom is not an American benefit, most developed nations have the same freedoms; speech, religion, arms etc. But it is drilled into American brains that they are unique in having such freedoms and rights. Maybe it's so nobody actually takes time to learn that most countries have freedoms and similar rights and then leave the USA (the military would dwindle).

    Gun control for most Americans is unconstitutional because people take their rights at face value and misinterpret their intent, meaning and application.

    I have a friend like that too, anything you say is taken as a literal and final statement for all similar things. If I say fish swim, then he sees it as my saying anything that swims is a fish. I mentioned a jockey was the track's top jockey, which he was because another had left temporarily. He just freaked out and started gathering others in the bar saying "Hey, did you hear what Aidemzo just said? He said that NO jockeys are as good as X" He's a mental midget so I let it go.

    Again, it's not JUST the USA, its everywhere. It just happens that our (Canada's) closest neighbours dominate our airwaves and have ten times the population and thus ten times as many nutjobs and yahoos that just don't get it.

    If you want a laugh.
    Y'all should download "Moonshiners" one day, it's a US series that depicts America's finest in North and South Carolina as they build stills in the bush for making corn based moonshine. REALLY funny, and amazing that they even remember to inhale after exhaling, straight out of the stereotypical comic books of redknecks, taken to the 'nth degree.. These yahoos are the ones who whine about gun control the most, the red states where "y'all better git awf mah layand!"

    And then there's Colorado, man don't even get me going on that backwoods bunch of yokels! Sorry Max, couldn't resist a poke!

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    I can't believe they made a TV show out of those yokels making moonshine. Its right up there with Hillbilly Handfishin' and Swamp People. Yeah, they are all funny shows, but honestly, if I ever ran into any of those people I would definitely want to be armed. God only knows what could happen to a person out in the backwoods with people like that around. AND, they still don't like us Yankees down there.

    Americans do love their guns. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and people will not let the government try to take those rights away. It isn't because we feel entitled, its because we don't trust the government.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Discovery Channel UK show "Moonshiners" over here. I've never watched it and, now, I'm glad I chose not to bother! I cannot see why a show that glorifies illegal activity is permitted.

    DC UK also showed "American Guns" which I watched once and, to be honest, it annoyed me as I see no need whatsoever for blatant pro-gun propaganda "showing that ownership of guns can be safe and fun". Yeah. They took it off the screens following Sandy Hook so obviously someone sees some sort of link. I wouldn't have pulled it, by the way. People can think for themselves. Can't they?

    We also suffered "Sons of Guns" which is crass. Full of loud idiots whooping and firing off military weapons.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Plenty of countries have a right to bare arms (though I prefer sleeves, living in Canada in the land of ice and snow and all that BS). We have a right to bear arms too!
    The difference is, we don't wear it on our sleeves (our arms wouldn't be bare then anyway) and boast about it as if we were unique. Who the heck cares if you have a right to bear arms? Really! So do I, in fact I've owned a few guns over the years. Some target pistols, a crossbow and crossbow pistol, a couple of shotguns, a 303, 22 and general stuff like that. Although I have owned them, not once did I ever even THINK of them as a means of protection, besides the rifles for being out in the bush for weeks on end, but even then it wasn't people I was worried about and even most bears run like the wind when they hear a human coming, gun or not.

    With your reasoning being people need to bear arms because they are afraid that if they don't the government might take away such rights, my head just spins with confusion. My government has pretty tight gun control laws and yet I have legally owned a few too. They haven't stripped me of anything but they make it harder for that road rager to run to the corner store and buy one to take me out on the way home.

    If your government is so poor that you feel you need a gun to protect your rights, why do you still live there?
    If you don't have faith in your government, what possible loyalty do you have toward your nation?
    If you don't trust your government, why do you vote to elect one?
    If you don't trust your government, why do you still live there?
    and so on and so on...

    I live in Canada by choice, it is a breathtaking country with a lot of opportunity. Yes, there are times when I get PO'd at Canada and I'm ready to up and leave, then they appease me and I stick around (without becoming a citizen of course). The point is, I''m not forced to be here, I can always leave if I don't like it.

    It appears that Americans feel a loyalty to those they deem disloyal toward them. Maybe that's the part I just don't get.

    +
    1 Votes
    mjd420nova

    I've heard all the arguments but many are so PRO- this or PRO- that, Prejudiced is what they mean. SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD works with a nation too. I keep and bear arms and spanked my children. If you enter my castle with the intent to harm me or my family or partake of my belongings, beware, none of what I have is not worth your life. Child rearing is not an exact science and must be suited to each childs behavior. Nearby Oakland Ca. has a gun violence rate that has 12 and 13 year old kids killing others on the streets. DAILY. Where did they learn these skills? Where else but at home. Debates are roaring over concealed carry and open carry laws but more constraint is needed before hasty legislation turns whole states and counties into combat zones. When the posiblity exists that a crook may attempt a robbery and get shot and or killed for their efforts, they might think twice. If you attempt to carjack me, you might get shot in the face. Concealed carry permits are closely guarded but must be accompanied with some training and live fire simulations. I would never have given my wife a .380 for her personal use if she hadn't tried it, fired it and cleaned it. Storage safety is a person by person basis but I feel that an unloaded weapon is useless. If younger children are present, safeguards are mandatory in some communities, safes and trigger locks among them. But one thing must be remembered, the world is filled with some incredible wonderful people, and some very terrible ones too, determining which is which can be truly life and death. If one teacher or the principal had been packing, the toll may have been much smaller.

    +
    2 Votes
    Slayer_

    It's difficult to defend that Americas obsession with guns is the correct way to live, when there is so much evidence against it. Doesn't stop Americans from defending it however. I am not trying to sound anti gun. But if Americans aren't willing to change things, why would they expect things to change, the school shootings will just keep happening.
    For example, why not make a law that says if the gun is not on your person, then it must be unloaded and locked up safely in a safe.

    +
    1 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    and they should have a trigger lock on & the ammunition should be under a "different" lock & key.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "How can i use my firearm to defend my home when I can't get to it myself?"

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    there's just no way to make everyone happy I guess.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    Like I said, if its not on your person, it must be locked up.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Some will say that if the firearm is locked up, they can't defend themselves against intruders breaking into their homes. It will take too long to get the firearm out of the safe, they can't do the combination or find the key in the dark, the flashlight and sounds will alert the intruder, etc.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    But really, if someone breaks in and you have time to get your gun, you really should just get out of the house (or grab kids and get out of the house).

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    You could always keep a small pistol hidden somewhere that's accessible. It wouldn't be a problem if you kept the ammo hidden in a separate place. Remember in the past how they used to have books that were actually a place to hide a gun? Something like that. Keep the ammo somewhere else.

    The best thing to do if someone breaks in is try to get out of there. I know in NJ if I shoot someone in my house and they didn't beat the crap out of me first, I'm going to jail and the intruder will walk free. The gun, in my state, is my last resort because I know if I use it in self defense, I could go to jail too.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    the comments I posted above are not my own. I am repeating opinions and positions I have heard from others in the past on the subject of requiring guns be stored in safes.

    I've been doing my best to avoid expressing a personal opinion so far, while reserving the option to trot one out at a later date.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Isn't that usually going to scare them away?
    And isn't that a good thing?
    Or is it absolutely necessary to go for that "lawful kill", just because?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Stop buying so much sh*t and bragging about it. Nothing to steal, nothing to break in for.

    +
    0 Votes

    No

    robo_dev

    If you have a child with 'issues' why have guns in your house at all?

    The Columbine shooters used a torch to get into their grandfather's gun safe.

    My parents used to lock the liquor cabinet, but it had a slight flaw in that if you pulled out the top drawer you could reach in and open the door....alegedly :)

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Sorry, to come in with an ad hominem but your post is just so stupid that I had no choice.

    "SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD works for a nation, too". Comparison with the other countries in the world, except a couple of third-world countries, puts the lie to that one.

    It's (paraphrased) in the Bible, so I guess you have to believe it.

    Oh, and it doesn't work for children, either. I bet you spanked your children. What did you use? Hand? Belt? Baseball bat? Never did you any harm, did it? Brought you to the fine, upstanding citizen that you are who would shoot a burglar who wants your flat-screen. Me? I just fit better locks and they go somewhere else, too, and nobody ends up dead. I guess, though, the fact that I was never spanked as a child has brought me to what I am: pinko, liberal who believes that voilence begets violence. and that physically disciplining children is pretty much a waste of time.

    Any beggar who is unfortunate to come over to your car to try and get a dollar is likely to get his face blown off. Me? You know, I've never been car-jacked. I just lock the doors. Central locking makes it easy enough. Anyway, it's a crap car and no-one would want it.

    I do hope you never get into one of those really, really passionate arguments with your wife where one party momentarily loses a grip on reality! One of you would be dead. Me? I just dodge the thrown teacup and leave the room until we've cooled down.

    Guns are absolutely no use for self-defence. To think otherwise is delusional. An armed criminal will have a gun to the head of the armed citizen before the armed citizen even realises what is happening. Then the criminal, besides securing the money he is after, will also have another gun. Me? I am aware that this is not Dodge City and it's not going to be a face-to-face "draw, you scum-sucking mollusc" encounter and I'll stay over here where I'm safer from armed criminals and law-abiding armed idiots.

    Your country allows people to take loaded weapons into BARS! Are you TOTALLY INSANE? Me? I reckon you are.

    The world is indeed filled with some terrible people.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    Most bars in the States do not allow guns; bouncers routinely use metal detector wands to stop that. Thus people here have shootouts in the parking lot of the bar, because they left their weapon in their vehicle.

    I've known a few people who had people 'out to get them'.

    One was a computer repair tech who turned states-evidence on some drug dealers, and the other was a friend who had the bad habit of dating married women.

    In both cases, their mode of defense was a layered approach with a combination of several handguns, shotguns, as well as tactical lights, video surveillance, and a whole lot of situational awareness.

    Like backing the car into the garage and checking the video surveillance system before opening the garage door. The compter-tech guy carried a 9mm pistol in his belt, a 22 revolver in his ankle holster, a separate revolver in the door of his vehicle and a brass-knuckles with integrated switchblade in his back pocket.

    Ironically he did service work at a military base, so he had to 'check his weapons' each morning in my desk at the offsite IT office and pick them up on the way home, as weapons are not allowed on-base, obviously.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Enough said, surely?

    And your "parking lot shootout" throwaway line makes the dangly bits tighten in this non-gun-toting Brit!

    We still have a huge cultural divide in that an habitual dater of married women would, most likely, get his face rearranged or his kneecaps broken when caught simply because the knife is not a weapon of choice except for teenagers and we just don't have guns.

    +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    As a veteran who has seen hand to hand combat, I don't use those skills at home. Married for over 40 years, never lost a fight as we've never had one. Raised four upstanding citizens and vets too. As a self defense weapon, and at hand, loaded weapon trumps all else. I will not vacate my family and home when intruders enter. Granted there are a few locallities and counties that have some strange concealed carry laws and open carry laws are just an invitation to a shootout. I enjoy your opinion but shall refrain from making any judgement upon your mentality.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    That's what discussion is all about. I certainly don't and won't refrain, although I do apologise for calling you an idiot. We live in different societies and have, obviously, different priorities and viewpoints. I'm finding out that we are more different that I ever realised and I was, unusually for me, lost for words to express myself. Please say what you want. Don't hold back. It aids understanding.

    I'm not a vet as we have a much, much smaller military and have avoided invading anyone since Suez until we took up with the US more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. I consider both of those wars to be pointless and illegal and we, the UK, avoided VietNam because our politicians in those days were a little more sensible than they are now. I have raised no vets although, for whatever it means, my nephew is going to Sandhurst Military College if he passes his exams and the whole family is proud of the achievement. But you should be aware that the concept of the "vet" as used in the US doesn't register in the UK societal consciousness. To be a "vet" implies nothing to most Brits. That's not rudeness, by the way, it's just how it is.

    My comment about the argument with your partner should be read with the backdrop of the huge number of homicides in the US that result from the use of legally-owned guns during an argument that, in my country, would end differently.As you are, obviously, still alive and I have a number of scars from failing to dodge flying crockery I guess you win that one.

    On a more serious note, what is really, really difficult for me to understand is the environment of fear that seems to exist in the US and be driving all of this. You have a loaded weapon and say "I will not vacate my family and home" when confronted by intruders. I have no idea what I would do as I have given it little thought because it is unlikely to happen. I may well return home to find my house burgled but I don't believe that an intruder will target my house if he knows that someone is there.

    The burglary rates for our two countries are close enough for me to ask whether you are over-reacting or I am under-reacting. Which of us is right? You know what I think.

    +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    I have learned to be prepared. I have been accosted on the street and in my vehicle. This was in a city that has a nasty crime problem and I would never go there but for work. Communication is the key, and I know you've heard it before but it's true. No fights, disagreements yes, and when it comes to raising children, the approach must be coordinated as the children find out real fast how to work mom against dad to get what they want. A sharp snap at the right time in a kids development can make the difference and is not meant to harm, it's never meant to harm. There are people in this world who harbor some terrible thoughts and it's hard to tell what a gun buyer has in mind. The availablity of a weapon in a time of anger has tripped up many but this cannot be constituted as a reason to lock things down and deny everyone a constitutional right in this country. The UK has been raised in an entirely different environment with slightly different values. I protect my home with an alarm and the door is posted with an intruder alert. I have had cars crash in front of my home, unto the lawn and into the corner of the house, each time someone came running to the door and pounded loudly and ran off. This has been used as a scam to get some people out of their homes, you just can't be to careful.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I can't believe the blatant ignorance of Americans that constantly spew the term, Constitutional Right. You know that your rights mirror most other free nations, right? You know that your rights were written for a society that existed over 200 years ago, right?

    Either your government is SO terrible that you feel a need to parrot your rights daily, lest you lose them, or you feel that America is very unique in having rights and the rest of the world live in mud holes.

    The other thing is how poorly most Americans understand their rights, most people have NO IDEA what freedom of speech entitles them to, or Freedom of Religion etc. And yet they harp away each day about their great rights that nobody else would understand because constitutional rights are an American thing.

    Here's where you really need to give your head a good shake though: "The availablity (sic) of a weapon in a time of anger has tripped up many but this cannot be constituted as a reason to lock things down and deny everyone a constitutional right in this country.

    "...has tripped up many but this cannot be constituted as a reason to lock things down and deny everyone a constitutional right in this country. "
    ie. "ooopsie, I erred, excuse me, doesn't happen often so don't bother changing laws on my behalf."

    No not the story at all. Random killings are more than a minor issue in the US, can you even come up with a total for the number of CHILDREN who were shot AT SCHOOL over the last 10 years in the USA? Not a problem though, especially if it infringes on YOUR right to carry a gun in the drug and gang shooting infested USA. Funny though, I'm sure you aren't as adamant about retaining other rights, such as freedom of religion (if you actually knew you had such a right or what it actually means), buts that's merely speculation based on hindsight.

    "I have had cars crash in front of my home, unto the lawn and into the corner of the house, each time someone came running to the door and pounded loudly and ran off. This has been used as a scam to get some people out of their homes, you just can't be to careful."

    Yup, best place on Earth to live, land of the free! (if you are locked in your home wielding a weapon).

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    and this was followied by a hammering at his door. He was asked for help, which he gave, calling the Emergency Services. He never suspected - nor would I - that this might be some sort of subterfuge to get him out of his house.Nor would it be.

    What a truly sad world some people inhabit.

    +
    0 Votes

    LOL

    aidemzo_adanac

    Priceless. Straight from an American military lifer's handbook. At least your kids grew up to be animal doctors instead of soldiers like every other American. When I ran an office in the US I had staff call in sick due to powder burns at the range, they'd be asking for paychecks early to get ammo because they just ran out (2 bullets would last a Canadian 2 lifetimes).

    I just wonder. You live in what Americans say is the most desirable country in the world. Your Constitutional freedoms, which are a mirror of most other counties, are said to be unique in that Americans feel a need to fight for them at every chance, as if Ahmed will take them away. America is the most prosperous nation on the planet, according to Americans. America has freedoms like no other, according to Americans.

    So why do you need to carry a gun in order to be safe from such violence, especially when locked inside your own home? It all just doesn't add up.

    P.S. The only reason you've never lost or even had a fight at home is because you know your wife is right and you better bloody well not second guess her. As long as you get to wear the pants on pub nights with the boys though, who cares how frilly your skirts at home are.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    I know a teacher who is a staunch gun person...here's the problem. She's not allowed to carry a gun in school; if such an event happened, she would have to run out to her truck to get her gun. Would that help? I doubt it.

    But the flip side to her 'packing' is, lets' say she keeps it in her purse, and some kid finds it and starts playing Roy Rogers in Math class....that's a problem.

    Guns can be a self-defense tool, but I know at least a few gun owners who think they are superman when carrying, and their gun protects them from all harm.

    I also know a couple of people whose lives were threatened, and their protection plan involved many guns...on their person, in their car, on the bedside table, in the bathroom. Plus there were tactical lights, pepper spray, CCTV, alarm systems, etc. Plus the most important weapon, situational awareness.

    Knowing how to carry and use a gun in the right situation takes years of training, and it's VERY easy to get it wrong. To use a weapon for self defense is a lot more than just knowing how to take the safety off.

    12 and 13 year old thugs did not 'learn that at home'...seriously.

    These kids are probably being raised by a single parent working two jobs to pay the bills. So when Mom is on the night shift, junior is on the streets. It's lack of supervision from single parents.

    +
    0 Votes

    OR

    aidemzo_adanac

    The toll could have been much higher, what facts do you have to prove either way? None, I know. Bit of a moot point then, wasn't it?

  • +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I saw it on a g/f's fb while I was picking up my 8 yr old daughter from school; it's just sickening. There can be no serious sane reason for anyone to go off at a school!!!! My heart is breaking for the poor parents that are getting the worst, most gutt renching news a parent could ever get. May God give you all strength through this horrible time

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    if publicizing these tragedies does more harm than good, if it motivates those with an incomprehensible desire for the attention that results from a so-called 'blaze of glory' finish. I guess it's news but really, what's the benefit to the public of trumpeting it, especially those outside the local area?

    Maybe I've just become too callous to be affected any more.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of fame, and that's the worry you raise. The media should report it, but not make the huge song and dance that they do.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    But am not sure how to avoid that.

    The challenge is how to keep weapons out of the hands of crazy people. That's not an easy puzzle to solve.

    I believe one important factor here is violent video games. Just as the Sept 11 hijackers used flight sim software to help them learn to fly, all the incredibly realistic first-person-shooter games are no different.

    If there is ONE thing I would hope that comes from this, it would be to have a grown-up discussion about guns in our society.

    The kneejerk reaction is to ban everything, but we ban drugs, and we banned alcohol...how did those things work out?

    When cars were first invented, on a percentage basis, fatalities were very high. So with driver training, licensing, and technical improvements, this problem was addressed. There are many more cars today and far fewer fatalities, as a percentage of the number of drivers and registered vehicles.

    If America can put a remote-control rover on Mars, surely we can all figure this out....

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    There's almost no politics involved. No one asks the rover's position on ********, or wants to know if returning capsule has immigration paperwork.

    As you noted, complete bans have been ineffective. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done, just that we've never managed anything similar in the past. Other countries obviously do it, but there are the questions of size of the US, existing stock and possessions, etc.

    However, I don't think violent video games have much of an effect. They're just the latest in a long string of boogie men going back through violent movies, televised wrestling, comic books, etc. In Salem they though playing witch was a sure fire path to ... sure fire. I imagine someone's parents berated him for peeking through Coliseum walls at gladiatorial games.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    No need to 'check it's papers' :)

    I live in a part of the country where young boys are really 'into' guns. They play 'airsoft' with full camo gear, using VERY realistic weapons that shoot pellets in full auto mode (drives the dog nuts).

    These same kids spend hours playing 'Call of Duty' as well as 'Metro' and whole host of hyper-realistic FPS (first-person-shooter) games. These are not like duck-hunt on Nintendo, these are 3D 'go for the headshot' simulations that give you a small taste of the adrenaline rush that (I imagine) you would have in an actual combat situation.

    For ANY of these kids, if you put a locked and loaded MP5 in their hands, other than the heft of the weapon, they would be completely at ease and, maybe I'm reaching a bit here, if hopped up on drugs or a kid with mental issues could blur the play world with the real world.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    The reason there are fewer fatalities these days is 99.999999999% due to the fact that cars absorb impact and have airbags that reduce the force from inertia on occupants. Even 50 years ago, peopl ewere thrown about like ragdolls in an accident. Sure grandpa loved his old Dodge, "solid and stable, not like these new things that just crumple and collapse when hit!"

    However, I'd MUCH rather be in a car that folds up like an accordion during an accident than one that doesn't. Engineering saved lives, not licencing.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The '59 probably weighs double what the 2009 does, yet the old car crumples like a tin can

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    It's offset, driver's fender to driver's fender. If it was a true head on, the Chevy would have fared much better I think. Then there's side impact which would have been different too. The Chrysler seems to have crumpled well too but is designed to absorb and redirect impact that the cabin doesn't crumple and the engine is pushed down to the ground instead of into the passenger compartment. The Chevy just trashed a fender and then the A pillars were cut in half due to rigid construction, that alone would be enough impact to do in any occupants. It really shows how far we have come though, cars today are a million times safer than those before, I've been saved TWICE from a sure death accident due to specific car construction that was just introduce the year I bought the car. I still love my old muscle cars though.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    like that. Over the years I've seen many crashed cars and they're usually full head on with the centre of both bonnets very close to each other, or the part ons are just the headlight corners clipped, or straight into an inanimate object, or full into the rear, or into the side or corner from the side. Except in the US test crashes like that video I've never seen two cars hit with the full quarter head on like that.

    On another aspect, my father's mid/late 1960s Toyota Crown was designed so that in a series impact with the front of the car the engine dropped out the bottom and the main body for the car rode up and over that while the engine compartment crumpled while absorbing energy. I've looked at a few modern cars of the same size and there's no way the engine can drop out the bottom and the frame etc isn't strong enough to absorb much impact energy at all due to teh cheaper way many are made out of shells welded together.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    But car to roadside tree/lamppost gives a corner crash like that most of the time.
    Sweden started using that in their car security tests. A lot of formerly five star cars got demoted.

    Car to tree is a very frequent source of death, since most car accidents are solo accidents.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    the side as an almost missed or dead in the centre of the bonnet.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    :^0
    Odds are the collisions will occur over the entire range equally.
    The corner collisions are much harder on the structure though.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    And discussing it with your kids is not a good idea either. They may not understand the depth of the issue beyond hearing people were killed on TV. I've seen parents hugging their kids and crying about it, not those involved but just parents who have seen the news. This creates unnecessary trauma for a child. Children are desensitized from TV news where people are shown being killed, they play violent games and are exposed to these realities daily. For them it is an unrealistic world, kids should not be filled with fears and sadness over such issues. No amount of personal awareness would help them avoid such a situation. Having a parent upset and warning about such things is just not needed and makes the issue much worse for them.

    I too had someone scowl at me on the weekend because I basically shrug my shoulders and write it off as a hideous society that I haven't believed in for many years anyway.

    Yes, it is absolutely horrific, it is a devastating time for all involved, parents should never outlive children etc.

    But the more fuss and public outcry it creates, the worse the situation gets as others follow suit to be even bigger and more notorious.

    It's been proven countless times by police forces worldwide that popularity will just breed more of the same. If nobody makes a fuss and it's not publicized, these people without a voice usually seek other avenues for attention.

    It is sad, my heart to goes out to those involved, I can't even begin to imagine if that had happened to my child...but we need to move forward and let police focus on why it happened, how it happened and working on ways to reduce the likeliness of it happening again.

    +
    1 Votes
    JJFitz

    My children were under 7 years old on 9/11. We were advised by school counselors not to have the TV news on. At that age, kids can get confused and think that the incident may be happening over and over.
    I think the same thing applies to this tragedy - especially since the media seems to add footage of other similar killing sprees.
    I think it is OK to discuss the incident with your children so that they know how to react during an emergency but don't dwell on it.
    They already have "lockdown drills" and fire drills in the school.

    We also had fire drills at home when they were young. They still know the drill 10 years later.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    What could possibly motivate someone to murder innocent children? My heart goes out to those that lost their loved ones and to all children, families and the teachers that will have to live with that horrible memory for the rest of their lives.

    Is there anywhere that any of us are safe anymore from the lunatics that walk among us?

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    That it is a Right to be armed and everyone should be carrying?

    See if those 5 year olds could have shot at the intruder not so many may have died.

    What a crock of Shite.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    All of the usual suspects on both sides of the 2nd Amendment have thrown their publicity machines into gear. I'm sure they both have contingency plans and public relations schemes sitting on the shelf for just such an 'opportunity'.

    +
    1 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Using dead children to justify their stances is completely unacceptable in my books.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Is something ONLY the pro gun control people are doing (can you spell Michael Bloomberg?).

    I'm glad you deem it unacceptable.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    You, Colin, are down in Australia, and you are obviously "using dead children to justify (your gun control) stances".

    And that's what you just criticized people in the United States for doing.

    (Shaking my head in disbelief.)

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    What Gun Control Stance?

    What have I said about Weapon Control?

    For that matter do you even know what I think of Fire Arms?

    What I really find offensive Joe is that someone will place words in my mouth that where never said or even implied. What happened yesterday your time "maybe by now" was a tragedy and it's unacceptable under any circumstances.

    Doesn't matter if those children where shot, stabbed or run over by a Hijacked 747 killing young children is just pure and simple Unacceptable, what makes it more unacceptable is that they where unrelated so they personally had no way of adversely impacting on the person who killed them..

    What I also find very offensive is that somehow you seem to be justifying the Right to Bear Arms and that there should be no controls on any Nutter who wants to shot the Crap out of a bunch of children because it's their right but in the same breath those same children do not have a Right to Medical Care provided by the State.

    I'm defiantly not under the impression that this is an excuse for anything at all though I do see it being used by the Gun Control Lobby to somehow try to overthrow your Constitution. While I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing it's most defiantly not a Good Thing from the point of view of the Rule of Law having any sort of Knee Jerk Reaction for any event. But by the same token I can also see some idiots claim that arming 5 year olds improves their chances of not being shot and killed because they can return fire.

    Doesn't matter if they are so far below the age to even understand what it is that they are doing it's OK to do it. Anything that seeks to Pervert the LAW to ones own ends is what I most defiantly find unacceptable. If there are changes to be made to any Legal Document particularly something as Important as the Countries Constitution it needs to be done away from any Hysteria and with a well run Public Education Campaign.

    Relying on Emotion is never acceptable to make changes to anything let alone something as important as the Constitution.

    As for the person you mentioned above I don't have a clue who or what they are or if they are male or female or what they are on about though from what you have posted above I would assume that they have something to do with Fire Arm Control Proposals, however if they would use something like this incident to advance their cause that in my books speaks volumes of why they should be ignored.

    As for weapon control it's impossible as anything can be used as a weapon something as simple as a Ball Point Disposable pen is an ideal weapon in the right hands and the possibility of outlawing something like that doesn't even rate a mention.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I quoted you verbatim.

    Did I misunderstand the intent behind the words you did utter? The ones I quoted?

    Now that's entirely possibly; I'll concede it's probable, based on your reply; and I'll even go so far as saying, What else is new?, based on our history in the TR Water Cooler.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    One nut tries to **** up an airplane with a bomb in his shoe, and now we all have to take our shoes off at airports. Many nuts kill hundreds, and nothing changes.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    didn't regard shoes as 'necessary to the security of a free state'.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    That was the well-trained militia.
    Where is that militia, by the way?

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    Helping rebuild...somewhere.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    for some reason that I don't fully understand, last year the Supreme Court ruled the 'militia' clause wasn't relevant to firearm laws.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    According to the sophistry of the pro-gun at-the-expense-of-everything-else crowd, "A well-regulated militia..." is not a qualifying clause, but a clarifying clause.

    +
    2 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    it is reasonable to refer to the entire country as if everyone in it holds the same opinion on this subject. I'm equally sure that the US is the only country in the world where people on both sides of tragedies exploit them for political benefit.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    I don't think America holds the patent on idiocy :)

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    This event has done two things: it's caused Dems to grow a pair, and it is exposing the GOP influence of the gun lobby.

    While Joe Scarborough may be now a RINO, he was rated A+ by the NRA for his stance on guns when he was in Congress. A staunch libertarian all the way and an avowed conservative Republican.

    Earlier this week he gave a mea-culpa on-air where he said he was wrong, that the safety of our children are the most important thing, and that this event changed him, and changed America. Call me naive, but I belive that.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    But in doing so, you look to the wrong cause.

    Cause and effect - people play the game, putting one or the other (cause or effect) in either the leading or the following position depending on what point is trying to be made (just like they do in the global warming debate - they mix up cause and effect). Is the proliferation of guns the cause?

    Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? The answer to that question has absolutely nothing to do with guns, yet that's the "cause" so many people identify with. But it's not the "cause" at all; it's only the scapegoat.

    Go ahead, Colin. Try to answer this question without your usual "nutter" kind of outlook.

    Kids (or young adults) killing other kids (or young adults). Why do they do it? What caused the rise in such things happening?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You live in a country where it is possible for people to legally own semi-automatic weapons.

    Regardless of whether incidents such as the recent shooting are on the increase - and I don't know whether they are, or not - to narrow down your view on "cause" in the way that you do is ridiculous and, honestly, somewhat disturbing.

    Fot a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen.

    Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... you sure can come up with some doozies!

    Without a gun, you cannot shoot people.

    Gee, Neil. What a brilliant observation.

    I guess we can conclude, then, that the prevailing mentality might go something like this. "Oh my, there's a gun. I think I'll pick it up and shoot someone."

    And another Neil Doozie:

    "For a crime, you require the means to commit the crime, the motive and opportunity. Without any of them, without the means, the crime does not happen. "

    Therefore, let's systematically, as a society, eliminate the "means" people use to commit crimes; then we can start, as a society, to start addressing those motives people have to commit crime; and then, we can monitor everyone to prevent them from taking advantage of opportunity. Yeah, that's the ticket!

    You propose eliminating the "means" so that the crime cannot be committed? Are you kidding me? (And it presupposes that eliminating the "means" is even possible, which it's not.)

    In what other crime is the "means" EVER blamed for the crime, and/or EVER suggested that it be eliminated from becoming available so that said crime cannot be committed?

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I am having a psychotic episode. I have been visited by God who has told me that Wattenden Primary School, Croydon,is to be my target. It is Tuesday afternoon at 2:30pm and I am standing outside of the school with my semi-automatic rifle with its military magazine and four hundred rounds of ammunition.

    But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one. I cannot go into the school and shoot the children.

    We should both address the motives, of course. But we in the UK and other societies with strict gun laws have long since addressed the means so that the probability of the juxtaposition of a psychotic killer and a weapon that permits him or her to kill rapidly and indiscriminately is reduced as close to zero as we can get it.

    As for your final question, I do believe that in both our societies, "going equipped for burglary" or its equivalent, is a crime; the means IS the crime. But that's irrelevant becuase obviously - I thought - I was not "blaming" guns but, to outsiders such as me, the idea that someone with a mental illness has such easy access, not just to guns, but to assault weapons is beyond our ability to comprehend.

    "The right to keep and bear arms". Whatever...

    +
    0 Votes
    Who Am I Really

    re: "But I'm British and I do not have a gun nor do I have access to one."

    whether there is a gun in every house or in none in any house
    a nutter will find a way to get one (or more) if they so desire

    +
    0 Votes

    But

    dogknees

    People usually don't stay angry for that long. Murder is usually, as far as I'm aware, a spur of the moment thing. If you can't access the means to carry out your desires immediately, you may well calm down and see sense. If the means are easily obtainable, you may act before you calm down and think.

    Obviously there are exceptions.

    I agree that gun-control will not remove the desire to carry out the act, and think that's where we should be looking for the solution, but there's very little political will to address problems this deeply embedded in our societies. Especially if it means we have to change our behavior.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    At this point in time, I have NO IDEA how to go about getting a gun if I want one. I wouldn't know where to start.

    Of course, we can't stop criminals holding illegal guns and it's possible that, if I were intending to commit a crime, that I could eventually find out. But I cannot simply take the guns belonging to a member of my family, or a neighbour, or an acquaintance because they do not have any.

    This discussion, for me, is about the psychotically deranged indivual, be that psychotic episode triggered by schitzophrenia or bipolar disorder or physical causes such as drugs, alcohol or a brain tumour, not being able to access the means to rapidly and indiscriminately slaughter.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    Where I live in the States, I could drop into any of dozen retail outlets on the way home from the office and pick up as many new pistols or even semi-automatic assault rifles and as much ammo as I can carry.

    Of course the 'straw purchasers' do just that, buy-em in Georgian, sell-em in NYC or Mexico, but I digress...

    If I wanted to get something illegal...let's say I wanted a kilo of Heroin. To be honest, I would not know where to start....bars in seedy part of town? Online? Even then, the illegality of the item means I could get shot or arrested walking into a sting operation.

    In the UK, getting any sort of weapon would be like me getting my kilo of heroin.

    +
    0 Votes
    SmartAceW0LF

    You better do it before the UK bans them!

    http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

    What's next?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    “We don’t need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values,” Gingrich said. “The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.”

    “The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,”

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    to my American (and other Nationalities) friends if I offend you at this point....I'm Canadian (and proud of it) but for the life of me, I do not believe in the right to bear arms.The right to own a gun for legal hunting and protection of one's home, yes. I don't have guns in my house, nor do I want them here. I made Darryl remove his rifles before I moved in, I want nothing to do with them.

    So my thoughts on this are, having easy access to guns and being P'Oed at my parents because I can't have my own way likely was justified is this sick kid's head before he went off. And nothing makes me more aggrivated than when they turn coward and kill themselvles instead of facing up. Yes, I'M friggin' mad!!!!!!!!! Watching the news last night made me cry, my heart is so broken for all the folks involved.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    But I should point out that in recent history the worst what is commonly called Gun Crime was committed in Norway which has some of the tightest Gun Control Laws in the world.

    What happened my time yesterday in the US was a utter tragedy but what happened in Norway even without the bombing by the idiot where 95 people where shot dead is beyond reason.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    yesterday was indeed tragic...Norway was beyond comprehension. There is no reason I find acceptable either that can explain those types of things; it`s just overwhelmingly emotional for me

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    6 years old, what a tragedy. What has to snap in your head to make you want to go kill small children. They had just moved there from Canada.

    Possibly even more tragic is the relative frequency of these attacks.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Hate feeds hate, kills more, builds more hate. If the hate doesn't kill you, it infects you.
    How do you cure hate?

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    No officials have even speculated yet on his 'reason', even off the record. His brother has talked to the police and said the family suspected he may have had mental illness.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I hear it sooo often in mass shootings or other types of violent crimes that it seems to me that it`s just a scapecoat. And it bothers me even more when they then shoot themselves as well. Sure, easy way out if you ask me.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    for the value of others.
    Whether it's men (usually) killing their spouses and children, then themselves, or idiotic teens who think they're special... they all involve not valuing other people for what they are.
    Some people think their kids are their property.
    Some people think other people are obstacles.

    Call it what you want, I call it hate.

    +
    1 Votes
    robo_dev

    Education, in general, helps to expose people to all kinds of other people, so perhaps the college student from a rural town sees for himself that people of other races and religions all don't have horns.

    Strong families means parents who actually parent, and can say the word NO. This also means, hopefully, passing on a bit of judgment, moral values, and self-esteem, which altogether should result in well-rounded citizens.

    Time heals all wounds. Years ago a British paramilitary soldier cut open the jacket of my grandfather in Northern Ireland with the bayonet of his rifle. My grandad saw firsthand the wrong end of a gun, and came to America as a result. He hated anything and anyone British, and even really tried to instill that in me, but I refused. Over time, from generation to generation, hatred will fade.

    +
    2 Votes
    AV .

    Maybe we should be looking at where these sick people get the ideas in their head to begin with instead of the weapon of choice. Look at some of the movies that are out. Look at the violent video games that some people play. Its all gore, all the time. It glorifies horrific violence and evil in such a graphic way. People that are sick and antisocial that watch the movies or play those games all the time aren't mentally equipped to treat it as just a game or a work of fiction. I think they find empowerment in the media that they don't have in their real life and at some point they cross a line where it seems like a good idea to act that out in real life. Probably that decision is triggered by a real life event where they feel rejected or wronged in some way.

    Its not only guns, its knives, bombs, fires, you name it. How do you prevent someone from making a bomb or using a knife or setting someone on fire or throwing acid on someone, etc., etc. etc.? The profile of the people that commit these mass murders is always the same. They are lonely, isolated, angry and anti-social with deep-seated hatreds. Maybe they are religious zealots. Maybe they are disgruntled employees that just lost their job. Maybe they hate the government. Until we figure out a way to deal with people like that, the killings will continue.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I can't see the US ever taking away the right to bear arms in this country and they shouldn't. That isn't going to solve the problem. A person with the intent to kill people with guns will just buy them illegally. Or, maybe they'll use a bomb instead or set the building on fire to inflict mass casualties. If they have the intent, they'll find the way.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    The Wacko's from making fake posts to places like Tweeber and My Face making out that they are the gunman and victims.

    The Idiot who did the shooting was pretty bad but the Wacko's who are now impersonating the people involved are really sick and need to be treated for their misguided ways.

    Hopefully the Investigating Officers will be given unlimited resources to catch and treat these Sick people.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    The primary "sick idea" being that any degree of emotion is an excuse for harming others. It doesn't matter how angry/upset/emotional/... you are, it is no excuse.

    This is going to be tough to root out.

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    Everyone gets angry, upset and emotional sometimes, but for most people those moods pass and venting about the problem is all thats needed. Most people would never think of dealing with these moods with a gun.

    There are some "sick" people though that never get over being angry, upset and emotional. They never talk about it, instead they keep it in and one day it all comes out at once in a disastrous way. Its a lifetime of hurt for some of these people.

    No matter how tough it is, we need to root out why some people are like that and what we can do about it.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Who remembers the names of the victims?
    And who remembers their murderers.
    Priorities, people.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    What is the premise of these games?

    You walk around dressed like a combat soldier with an automatic weapon and kill anyone and everyone...sound familiar?

    The Sept 11 hijackers used Microsoft Flight Simulator to help them train. Should we ban all Microsoft products? (well maybe), but the point is that computer simulators are a valuable teaching tool.

    +
    1 Votes
    dogknees

    Is that it's not the real world. To me that's the point, I can do things I cannot or would not do in the real world without harm to myself or others.

    Flight sims are the classic case, No one would attempt to fly a Jumbo under the Golden gate bridge in real life, but it's kind of cool to try in a sim.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    No one would attempt to fly a Jumbo under the Golden gate bridge in real life, but it's kind of cool to try in a sim. .

    But up until twelve years ago, people were saying that about flying airplanes into buildings...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    ...if I had a Jumbo jet. Would be a gas, probably a big explosion too but, if you made it, WHAT A RUSH!!!

    +
    1 Votes

    ?

    aidemzo_adanac

    "You walk around dressed like a combat soldier with an automatic weapon and kill anyone and everyone...sound familiar?"

    I take it you've never played a first person shooter then. Most high-end FPS games have very specific tasks and objectives, beyond randomly killing everything you see. Killing mass people, the wrong people or even popping off a shot at the wrong time gets you killed.

    Face it today's society is blatantly ignorant, both the good ones and the bad. When I was a kid, I know that hitting someone in the head with a frying pan was not a realistic thing to pull off. I didn't draw a big black tunnel on a cliff face and wait for a truck to try and drive through it. Strapping on a giant ACME rocket was in cartoons and I knew the difference without someone censoring it, making it unavailable to enjoy or slapping a PG13 tag on it (which just boosts sales to underage kids anyway. Didn't work for music doesn't work for games or movies either).

    We live in a society that gets weaker and more pathetic each and every day. We seek out the wrong solutions to issues as Band Aids, not valid solutions. Someone commits suicide, we put up a sign not to jump and kill yourself. Someone gets shot and we consider changing gun laws (even though the gun was illegally obtained to begin with). Someone kills a group of school children and we start by trying to figure out what mental deficiency excuse we can attach to it.

    Face it, our society creates these issues, reacts inappropriately when things go wrong and simply perpetuate the issue, creating more of the same. I say anyone under 21 get;s their act together or gets put down. Start again with some real parenting, some real mentors and some REAL ways for a child to see value in life. Besides going home and gaming every day because you weren't good enough to hang out with the cool kids.

    Society is simply phuqued.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    What is the reason for the American obsession with guns? Why do guns have an emotional and intellectual importance that we over here can only stand and wonder at and not understand or empathise in the slightest? We have common history and values in so many ways but, in this matter, we are as far apart as it is possible to be.

    Is it the "cult of the individual"? Yet I see Americans as more homogeneous and less individual than my own culture.

    Is it because the nation was born in armed revolution? Yet that is the case with other countries and nowhere else is the cult of the weapon so obvious. Anyway, that was then, this is now.

    Your history? A settler nation that had to both impose and maintain its domination over indigenous people to acquire and defend land and feed itself in a frontier state? Again, that was then, this is now.

    The constitution? That's another obsession that I cannot comprehend. The idea that a "right", defined as a right in the eighteenth Century might be taken from you causes apoplexy. As someone who does not have that partuclar right, does not miss it and honestly does not want it, I am (yet again) left scratching my head.

    Fear? This one, I can grasp at and, maybe, understand. Everybody has a gun so I have to have a gun? But that does not explain the obsession with firearms and it certainly does not explain how the USA produces "Preppy" female primary school teachers who own semi-automatic weapons.

    If I were to take away your gun, you white, middle-class American, what would upset you most about my action?

    I'm listening to the radio this morning and, obviously, the major news item is the Newtown massacre and the line that has made me stop and wonder is "one of the worst school massacres in American history". There is a league table of school massacres? I cannot comprehend how there can be a massacre at a school and NOTHING IS DONE. And so, there is another one...

    The logic is so obvious. You are locked in a room with a homicidal maniac. Would you prefer it if he or she had a gun, or they didn't?

    Yes, I know, if YOU had the gun... But that's not my question

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". This banal statement conveniently ignores the fact that people can kill people far easier with guns than almost anything else and that, in a country with high levels of inequality, poverty and segregation, such as America, they are more likely to do so.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Your illustration of being locked in a room with a homicidal maniac. Would one prefer it if he or she had a gun, or they didn't?

    A rhetorical question, to be sure- and a really stupid and misleading one. Who could argue with your conclusion that it would be better if said homicidal maniac did not have a gun or access to a gun. I think that falls under the DUH! category.

    Therefore what?

    Therefore, according to Neil, if NOBODY has any guns, then the homicidal maniac can't get one. Gee, neither can Neil when the homicidal maniac whispers in his ear, I'll get you later, you bloody Red Coat! Another time, another day...... and (hehehe) you won't be able to defend yourself!"

    I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who will use them for murder. But the sweeping solution of keeping guns out of all people's hands isn't acceptable.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    But it somewhat describes your society where homicidal maniacs both can and do easily - it seems to the outside observer - gain posession of guns. That's my rather obvious point.

    I'm lost for a word to describe the sheer quantity of guns available in your country and I really need someone to explain to me how you arrived at where you are in that respect.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    to me anything outside of a hunting rifle and maybe a small handgun is just asking for some sort of trouble. Who in their right mind needs a friggin' glock in their house? Semi automatic weapons are meant for war, not protecting or hunting. And the damned well need to be locked up if you have them in your home where your kids can not have easy access to them.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Skys, I suspect you don't know how even that line seems bizzarre to me. I'm really trying to get an idea as to how the US is where it is. Handguns aren't used for hunting. Their only purpose is to kill people.

    Speaking personally, the notion that I could have something in mt hand that could, with trivial effort on my part, kill somebody instantly fills me with dread. I guess that most Americans would think me stupid; posession of a handgun protects us, they say, from random assault. No, it doesn't. It only works if you shoot first. Without thinking.

    Statistics show that most gun murders at home are perpetrated not by an intruder, but by a member of the family or an acquaintance. Common sense says that a squabble is less likely to be resolved by compromise if there is no gun to end it quickly.

    The incidence of suicides is far higher in American homes which possess guns than in those which do not. A young person in the grip of overwhelming unhappiness in the UK may contemplate putting an end to it all. But using a knife takes great courage and is messy and painful; gas and pills are unreliable; and all three are so slow that there is time to think again; to cry for help.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    it bothers me as well. I don't believe in guns but there are places in the world where people do need to protect what they have. But...not in your everyday suburbia. I too could not imagine having a tool of any sort in my hand that I would turn into a weapon to hurt someone.

    Canadians own guns, don't get me wrong, but we damn well keep them under lock and key where our kids (or anyone else by that matter) can't get at them. Not in shoe boxes in our closets or under our beds where enquisitive children can find them.

    Suicide is hard for me to grasp. I've suffered depression on and off for the last 15 yrs but the thought of hurting my children and family by taking my own life is too overwhelming. It bothers me that those that do these terrible things like what happened in Conn. this past week, then turn their guns on themselves and take their own lives; it's cowardly.

    I think people have given up on the idea of an oral compromise and have given in to the idea of "it's my way or no way" using weapons of choice as an end to their means.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    True, in fact there are more guns, per capita, in Canada than in the USA. Updated: When we had a similar discussion a few years back there were more guns per capita in Canada, not so these days it seems. I guess all the wildlife is dead and it's just down to a handful of whales and whatever fish the American boats didn't come and take south.

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    Many people own guns in the US for recreational purposes. Handguns, target pistols and the like are used at shooting ranges. Its a sport.

    Sure, having a handgun also provides protection, if it is ever needed, but the majority of gun owners understand that owning a gun carries a great responsibility. They know how to use the gun and store it properly.

    There are many rural areas in the US where owning a gun is a necessity for self defense. There is no big police presence to depend on, you're on your own. Sometimes the perpetrator is an animal and not a human. I live in a remote location in the woods. I've seen bear, big cats and lots of other wildlife right in my yard. I wouldn't feel safe if I didn't have some kind of weapon to protect myself, if I needed it. Theres no one coming to save me.

    Some people like to collect guns as a hobby. Thats why they have so many of them. Theres nothing sinister about that. Its fun to take them to the range and shoot them on occasion.

    Another thing to consider is that criminals never buy guns legally to begin with. You could have an assault weapon ban for the legal gun owners, but there is no way to control what the criminals can get their hands on.

    I think the real problem here is how to identify those that are anti-social misfits and try to get them the right kind of help before they do something bad. In the cases of the Colorado shooter and school shooter in Connecticut, everyone around them seemed to know that these people were not right, but didn't know how to deal with them properly. James Holmes, the Colorado gunman, wasn't helped by therapy. The US needs to have a candid conversation about how to help these types of individuals. They really are a danger to all of us left to their own devices.

    Sure, we can put the assault weapon ban back in effect, but that won't solve the problem. It didn't in the past and won't in the future.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    for having more than 1 Fire Arm. What stops a bear is overkill for many other animals and what would stop most dangerous smaller Wildlife is only going to Peeve Off a Bear.

    Though a Hand Gun is still probably not the best thing to try to use, Rifles are most defiantly the thing I would want though I very much doubt that I would need a SLR and a 30 round mag.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Why? "Handguns, target pistols and the like are used at shooting ranges. Its a sport."

    Practice killing people? Yeah I've watched Top Gun, I've been to a range a few times etc. It was fun, I enjoyed it, but it didn't change my life for better or worse. Can't do it anymore? Oh well, c'est la vie, I'll buy a soccer ball instead.

    " I wouldn't feel safe if I didn't have some kind of weapon to protect myself,"

    That doesn't fall under gun control though. If you are not a nutcase and are looking for a rifle to protect against wildlife, even gun "control" laws would allow it, just as they do anywhere else..

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    I would hope I didn't p*** off the bear with it. Actually, I scared a bear off making noise by beating on my pots and pans and yelling at it. Its pretty scary because their nails are as long as my fingers. Thankfully, I don't see too many bears, but every now and then they are there looking in on my mud porch. Its scary.

    Most of what I get here are nasty feral cats and other small wildlife. We've had a big cat on occasion, but they usually just move on. I've had some sick animals that decided my yard is the best place to die and I just let nature take its course with them.

    I live in a nature preserve so this is what you get. I can live with that and definitely do not need a machine gun or the like, but guns are necessary in this environment in case you need them.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I understand, that's warranted. You have the chance of being attacked by sick/wild animals, you need to have something to personally protect yourself. It's folks that live in everyday suburbia that feel they need to be "packing a piece" whilst they pick up their children from school.

    It's horrible what happened in Conn. and it has broken my heart and taken away a bit of trust in society, but I'm inclined to wonder why the young man that did this travasty could so easily get his hands on such weapons in the first place. I would like to believe that his mother (God rest her soul as well) had the guns under lock and key and the ammo under separate lock and key.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Aside from the more urban areas in the US, a lot of America is pretty rural. I live in New Jersey and you would never think there were rural areas here, but there are. Everyone has guns where I live and we have the lowest crime rate in all of the state. We don't carry them, but the mentality here is so much different. Its farm country. People hunt here. It isn't uncommon to see people with weapons.

    His mother was a gun person and probably took good care to keep them locked up because she knew her son couldn't be trusted with the weapons. He supposedly shot her while she slept and then he probably was able to gain access to the weapons. I don't think she would have ever given him access without her supervision.

    He was smart and knew enough to destroy his computer hard drive as well, which isn't that easy to do. Hard drives are encased very well. I think he really planned for the whole event. He wanted to kill his mother, but I don't understand why he murdered all of the children. The only thing I can think of is that he hated the school and they were just random victims.

    In Connecticut and other more urban cities in the Northeast, guns are pretty much banned. We have the strictest gun laws in the country in the Northeast and it didn't matter. I still can't believe what happened.

    I think Adam Lanza wanted to make a statement by killing all of the children. He wanted to make people suffer to pay for his suffering in life.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    The most wildlife I see is if the cute neighbor lady walks her dog :)

    +
    0 Votes

    AV

    aidemzo_adanac

    I think you probably were getting at that he had acquired a handgun SOMEWHERE, not that it would be hard to do because I can get a gun here if I wanted one (legal or not). But I found it a bit funny to read
    "He supposedly shot her while she slept and then he probably was able to gain access to the weapons."

    Chicken and egg thing comes to mind there. :)
    Back to back they faced each other, turned around and shot one another.

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    Sure, he could have gotten a gun if he didn't use his mother's guns. He couldn't legally buy a handgun because he isn't old enough (only 20), but he was in possession of his 24-year-old brother's ID. Any gun show or a private seller would have sold him a weapon. Also, like you said, he could also get a gun illegally, no questions asked, no ID needed. Money talks, and it sounds like he had plenty of that.

    Even if he didn't have guns, he could have used a bomb or burned the building down. The bottom line is that he had the intent to kill.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    We shouldn't do anything to restrict their ability to turn intent into action?

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    We already have 300+ gun laws on the books and that didn't stop the crime from happening. Do you really think another gun law will solve the problem? You and I both know the government isn't going to round up everyone's weapons, so whats the use of yet another law.

    Sure, you can ban large clips or canisters and place more restrictions on gun sales at gun shows, but I don't see how that would have prevented this crime.

    Everyone knew this guy wasn't right in the head and yet he was allowed to be part of society for years with everyone looking the other way. He should have been given some type of mental help when he was younger. I think we, as a society, need to focus our attention on how we treat the mentally ill and what the best course of action is for people like that in our society. I also think we should take a good, hard look at the kind of movies we watch and video games we play. Do we really need video games like Kindergarten Killers? Who among us thinks thats a fun game to play? We truly are a sick society if thats what some people find entertaining.

    http://www.polygon.com/2012/12/21/3792168/kindergarten-killer

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    And no law is going to stop every crime. But to argue that we shouldn't make it more difficult for the people who might commit such acts because it won't completely stop them is like arguing we shouldn't have laws at all because people break the law.

    I agree with you 100% on the mental health issue. The problem there is we became so worried about the rights of the mentally ill, we forgot about everybody else's right to not live in fear.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    And nobody cuts costs because they're worried about people's rights.
    It was deemed (across the entire western world) too costly to keep funding mental hospitals as the treatments available began to actually be effective, rather than the torture/storage that used to be in effect.
    We're all to blame for letting that happen.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Hey, we're gluttons for "stuff". It's a factopinguess that Americans have more of everything per capita. Why should guns be an exception? We have more cars and televisions and telephones and ipods and ipads and computers and golf clubs and this and than and ........

    Therefore, unless you compare the numbers of ALL things we have "more of", isolating only guns is misleading.

    Why does a guy need one hundred guns, you might ask? I don't know; and it's none of my business. Maybe for the same reason Jay Leno wants to have one hundred cars.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You logic gymnastics are breathtaking.

    It's absolutely a fact that the US has more legal guns per capita than any other nation. The figures are freely available. And more, far more, people are killed, per capita, in the US by legal guns - homicide, accident or suicide - than any comparable Western country. These figures are also freely available.

    So, do I attribute this to your "gluttony" for "stuff"? I don't think I do.

    What is the response to the recent tragedy? "Let's arm the teachers."

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And that's what we get when people always run to government (either federal, and/or state, and/or county, and/or city, and/or local) with the task of coming up with all of the solutions to all of the problems for all of the people all of the time.

    Okay, a stretch connecting logic and logistical.....

    and a bit of a tangent from the original topic.....

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Obviously any country with more citizens that own guns will have a higher homicide by gun rate. It's about as simple as logic gets in that respect.

    But the rate is not proportional to other countries with a lot of guns.

    Yemen and Switzerland have more guns per 100 people than the US, however the homicide by handgun rate doesn't even make the top 40 list, where the US is third.

    I think it's the proportions that make everyone stunned when they see the violence by firearm rate in the US. Sure you have more guns but the number of homicides by handgun is staggering. There are other extremes, such as South Africa where they have fewer guns but an immensely high number of deaths by guns.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    We have different word views.

    Neil wants to prevent homicidal maniacs from obtaining guns. Maxwell wants to prevent homicidal maniacs from obtaining guns.

    Neil, therefore, wants to eliminate guns from even existing (maybe an exaggeration, but for effect); Maxwell, on the other hand, doesn't want to infringe on the majority of the population who does not fit the description of homicidal maniacs by eliminating guns from existance, and would prefer seeking solutions that might identify potential homicidal maniacs (although that could be a very slippery slope as well), and/or seek solutions to protect the innocent from those homicidal maniacs.

    If I had to make the call and come up with a solution in my little isolated corner of the world, and I had to decide: pass a law banning all guns, or arm and train my kid's teacher.

    I say to forget about the "building self esteem" classes the teachers have to take, and instead send them to get trained so they can defend the kids left in their care. Maybe Mary Poppins, the teacher, should get some Rambo training.

    Neil's World View: I want government to defend and protect me.

    Maxwell's World View: I want government to protect and guarantee my right (endowed upon me by my creator, not Neil's government) to defend myself, my family, and my property.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    if you mean God, did not tell you to mass murder people with whatever tool of your choice....protect, yes, but you sure as frig don't need any more than one small handgun or a baseball bat. As for your property, put up an electric fence. If you need more than that, then move because you're obviously in too violent a place to be raising children anyway.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Is defined however one would care to - from God ... to god ... to Mother Nature ... to whatever else someone wants to conjure up. Point being, it ain't government.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    Maxwell's World View: I want government to protect and guarantee my right (endowed upon me by my creator, not Neil's government) to defend myself, my family, and my property. I'm asking...what's yours? because either way you look at it, i'm sure that the right to own semi automatic guns, or anything beyond what's necessary to protect what's yours, wasn't their intent

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It doesn't matter how I define my creator. But it does matter that you try to decide what may or may not be needed or necessary for another person, especially if it trumps what that person may deem needed and necessary for himself.

    Regardless of the merits of one's argument, the accuracy of one's statistics, or whatever, Liberty is the ultimate trump card in America, and if any given solution to any given problem violates ANYONE'S Liberty, then it's going down the wrong path. And it's not up to me to tell you what the right one is; but Lady Liberty will sternly remind people when they're treading down hers.

    It's obviously a concept some people simply can't grasp (and/or are unwilling to let Liberty's chips fall where they may) - thus, the world-view difference. And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.)

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I’m not trying to decide what a person needs, but in what necessity would it require having a semi automatic weapon in your home if you aren’t a law enforcement agent or part of the armed forces? And I bet they lock their guns up at the end of the day.
    Lady Liberty was a gift from the French to celebrate America’s freedom to be free from oppression of other nations, not to be used as a “reason” to have the right to bear arms against one another.
    I’m not quoting statistics; I’m just giving my opinion...as do you. I’m not sure you have different world opinions, but you certainly have your own, as do I. Liberty is freedom; if you think it means something more, I’ll entertain your thoughts.
    Common sense is the ultimate trump card. You demand the freedom to own semi automatic weapons; but for what reason? And I don’t understand how Liberty’s (freedom’s) chips could fall where they may...huh? Liberty is freedom...nothing more.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.)

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    exactly what you think it is?" And I suppose there are some people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of having different world views. (And I'm certain there are people who have no idea what I mean when I speak of liberty.) " Enlighten us...

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    It would be both pointless and a waste of time - at least here and now.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    you're right, you have no need to explain yourself,your responses the last couple days say it all. You typically talk in circles in such a way to just confuse people, or yourself. Either way, I'm done with you on this topic. Maybe I'll play more next time...or not...

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I saw the hook and wasn't going to bite because I think I know your stand in life, well enough not to question it anyway.

    My creators are my mother and father. They are real, I have seen them and that, biology mixed with a story I refused to hear in full, was how I was created.
    As for "Faith", I have faith in myself to do what's right, and my family to help guide and teach me, that's about it. If i can't rely on myself or family, I don't look to the unknown and simply have 'faith' that some other force/power will see me through.

    So I guess that means I believe I have a creator and I also have faith, just not in a specific, religious way.
    Funny though, I had a nice man knock my door and hand me a pamphlet one Sunday morning, he seemed to think I had neither faith nor belief in creation. I found it quite odd, seeing as I know for a fact that my parents created me (I was born on the table in my dad's pub, it was in real life and everything). He seemed a bit baffled so I thanked him for his pamphlet and politely closed the door.
    I wonder how he got a job selling faith and belief in creation if he didn't even understand how I was created?

    +
    3 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Bit of a problem, here. My "Creator" didn't endow me with any rights whatsoever. My Creator is an impersonal Un iverse that doesn't give a damn. Apparently, we are all supposed to have certain "self-evident rights". (Which are nothing of the sort. Just because someone else says they are, doesn't make it so.) And then we go on from there.

    All rights - and I think some people are a little obsessed with "rights" - have either been given or taken away, depending on perspective, by collections of men with or without my agreement.

    You know, you still haven't answered my question as to how and why there is an obsession with weapons within a significant tranche of US society when it's patently obvious that many, many people are dead who would not be dead if you had kept the lid on it even a little bit. Maybe by not allowing the ban on the private ownership of assault weapons to lapse.

    Abd to answer your question, I am sufficiently defended by a police force (who don't routinely have guns) and armed forces (especially if we could get them back from illegal Wars and keep them out of Iran and syria), under the rule of law. I do not believe that I or the children that I know have more than the remotest chance in our entire lives of being menaced by a firearm, let alone shot.

    And am I happy about that? Oh, yes. They do it and I don't have to. I have the example of the USA to make my mind up on that one. Can I put this more simply. Wanting to own (and practice with and teach your children to own and practice with) a firearm is, in most civilised societies, regarded as weird and anti-social. And the tens of thousands of firearm deaths in the USA each year are the reason why we think this way.

    I certainly do not need to own a weapon in the expectation that my government may threaten me with armed force. What is THAT all about!

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    On people being obsessed with "rights". I agree. Most people, however, have no idea what they are, what they aren't, what always comes with them (responsibility), where they come from, how they can be denied, etc.

    Point being, however, is that natural rights are not endowed by governments or man.

    I won't argue that many people freely give up those rights to government because they don't want to accept the inherent responsibility that comes with it.

    The question you asked that I didn't answer: ".... how and why there is an obsession with weapons within a significant tranche of US society when it's patently obvious that many, many people are dead who would not be dead if you had kept the lid on it even a little bit."

    You pick whichever answer suits your fancy.

    A. I don't have an answer.
    B. I don't need to provide an answer.
    C. The different world-view premise of your question makes it impossible to answer.
    D. I don't know and I don't care.
    E. All of the above.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    It is because there is such a cultural divide on this, because I truly do not understand, that I was asking. You choose not to try to explain, I cannot make you, this conversation is done. Please don't reply to any further posts I make on this subject and I won't respond to any of yours lest we both waste our time.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    If somebody here challenged somebody else to a duel :)

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as long as we argue with words and not lead, I guess that's a start.

    +
    2 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Tighter gun control laws is seen as a sweeping solution to keep guns out of ALL people's hands? How so?

    Canada has gun control laws, its still not hard to get a gun at all, if you are an upstanding citizen with no criminal an mental history. Who else would you warrant legally owning a firearm?

    "Just because I am American, I should be able to own a gun, without further hesitation", is not a very clever mentality at all.

    IT's not the people who legally own and responsibly have guns that I see as a problem, it's those that illegally acquire said guns from the responsible owners that are the problem. Just like everything you are taught in life from a very young age, one bad apple spoils the cider for everyone.

    Red coats though? LOL, c'mon Max! You were dismissing Neil's example as a ludicrous.

    "I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who will use them for murder."

    If so many illegal, many stolen in robberies or from parents gun cabinets, night stands, cupboards, cutlery drawers and everywhere else Americans keep guns 'handy just in case' how doesn't that raise a red flag for you?

    It's not the responsible owners, it's the criminals that steal their guns. It's not that YOU are a shoplifter but you still pay more for goods because others do shoplift.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Even the much reviled Denmark doesn't ban guns.
    Now, carry licenses are hard to get, sure enough. But if you have a hobby that requires a firearm, you can get one.
    Self-defense is not seen as a valid reason in most cases because violent crime isn't a real threat to most people.

    If someone has a fatwa on them or has angered the Mossad, then they can probably get a gun permit and a carry license. Not that the Mossad will give a damn about a handgun. If someone is on CIA's rendition list ... well, that remains to be seen. After all, Denmark isn't like Sweden who lets the CIA grab people on Swedish soil (Stay away, Assange).

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    I think it's just a common sense of entitlement that they feel will be lost if control is increased. A sense of entitlement is something I see killing society, everywhere not just the US. People feel they are DUE something from the government, they are ENTITLED to this or that because others may have it etc. In short, people are really f****n lazy these days and don't feel they need to work to earn anything.

    I find that people in the US believe they are the only ones with the most basic of human rights, which we all have. Freedom of speech, you never hear about it until some American whines that he can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, which is not what freedom of speech means at all.

    Right to bear arms, yeah we have that right in Canada too, you have it in England, if you pass a background check and wait a while so they can determine if you are prone to killing people randomly.

    Freedom is not an American benefit, most developed nations have the same freedoms; speech, religion, arms etc. But it is drilled into American brains that they are unique in having such freedoms and rights. Maybe it's so nobody actually takes time to learn that most countries have freedoms and similar rights and then leave the USA (the military would dwindle).

    Gun control for most Americans is unconstitutional because people take their rights at face value and misinterpret their intent, meaning and application.

    I have a friend like that too, anything you say is taken as a literal and final statement for all similar things. If I say fish swim, then he sees it as my saying anything that swims is a fish. I mentioned a jockey was the track's top jockey, which he was because another had left temporarily. He just freaked out and started gathering others in the bar saying "Hey, did you hear what Aidemzo just said? He said that NO jockeys are as good as X" He's a mental midget so I let it go.

    Again, it's not JUST the USA, its everywhere. It just happens that our (Canada's) closest neighbours dominate our airwaves and have ten times the population and thus ten times as many nutjobs and yahoos that just don't get it.

    If you want a laugh.
    Y'all should download "Moonshiners" one day, it's a US series that depicts America's finest in North and South Carolina as they build stills in the bush for making corn based moonshine. REALLY funny, and amazing that they even remember to inhale after exhaling, straight out of the stereotypical comic books of redknecks, taken to the 'nth degree.. These yahoos are the ones who whine about gun control the most, the red states where "y'all better git awf mah layand!"

    And then there's Colorado, man don't even get me going on that backwoods bunch of yokels! Sorry Max, couldn't resist a poke!

    +
    1 Votes
    AV .

    I can't believe they made a TV show out of those yokels making moonshine. Its right up there with Hillbilly Handfishin' and Swamp People. Yeah, they are all funny shows, but honestly, if I ever ran into any of those people I would definitely want to be armed. God only knows what could happen to a person out in the backwoods with people like that around. AND, they still don't like us Yankees down there.

    Americans do love their guns. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and people will not let the government try to take those rights away. It isn't because we feel entitled, its because we don't trust the government.

    AV

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Discovery Channel UK show "Moonshiners" over here. I've never watched it and, now, I'm glad I chose not to bother! I cannot see why a show that glorifies illegal activity is permitted.

    DC UK also showed "American Guns" which I watched once and, to be honest, it annoyed me as I see no need whatsoever for blatant pro-gun propaganda "showing that ownership of guns can be safe and fun". Yeah. They took it off the screens following Sandy Hook so obviously someone sees some sort of link. I wouldn't have pulled it, by the way. People can think for themselves. Can't they?

    We also suffered "Sons of Guns" which is crass. Full of loud idiots whooping and firing off military weapons.

    +
    0 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Plenty of countries have a right to bare arms (though I prefer sleeves, living in Canada in the land of ice and snow and all that BS). We have a right to bear arms too!
    The difference is, we don't wear it on our sleeves (our arms wouldn't be bare then anyway) and boast about it as if we were unique. Who the heck cares if you have a right to bear arms? Really! So do I, in fact I've owned a few guns over the years. Some target pistols, a crossbow and crossbow pistol, a couple of shotguns, a 303, 22 and general stuff like that. Although I have owned them, not once did I ever even THINK of them as a means of protection, besides the rifles for being out in the bush for weeks on end, but even then it wasn't people I was worried about and even most bears run like the wind when they hear a human coming, gun or not.

    With your reasoning being people need to bear arms because they are afraid that if they don't the government might take away such rights, my head just spins with confusion. My government has pretty tight gun control laws and yet I have legally owned a few too. They haven't stripped me of anything but they make it harder for that road rager to run to the corner store and buy one to take me out on the way home.

    If your government is so poor that you feel you need a gun to protect your rights, why do you still live there?
    If you don't have faith in your government, what possible loyalty do you have toward your nation?
    If you don't trust your government, why do you vote to elect one?
    If you don't trust your government, why do you still live there?
    and so on and so on...

    I live in Canada by choice, it is a breathtaking country with a lot of opportunity. Yes, there are times when I get PO'd at Canada and I'm ready to up and leave, then they appease me and I stick around (without becoming a citizen of course). The point is, I''m not forced to be here, I can always leave if I don't like it.

    It appears that Americans feel a loyalty to those they deem disloyal toward them. Maybe that's the part I just don't get.

    +
    1 Votes
    mjd420nova

    I've heard all the arguments but many are so PRO- this or PRO- that, Prejudiced is what they mean. SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD works with a nation too. I keep and bear arms and spanked my children. If you enter my castle with the intent to harm me or my family or partake of my belongings, beware, none of what I have is not worth your life. Child rearing is not an exact science and must be suited to each childs behavior. Nearby Oakland Ca. has a gun violence rate that has 12 and 13 year old kids killing others on the streets. DAILY. Where did they learn these skills? Where else but at home. Debates are roaring over concealed carry and open carry laws but more constraint is needed before hasty legislation turns whole states and counties into combat zones. When the posiblity exists that a crook may attempt a robbery and get shot and or killed for their efforts, they might think twice. If you attempt to carjack me, you might get shot in the face. Concealed carry permits are closely guarded but must be accompanied with some training and live fire simulations. I would never have given my wife a .380 for her personal use if she hadn't tried it, fired it and cleaned it. Storage safety is a person by person basis but I feel that an unloaded weapon is useless. If younger children are present, safeguards are mandatory in some communities, safes and trigger locks among them. But one thing must be remembered, the world is filled with some incredible wonderful people, and some very terrible ones too, determining which is which can be truly life and death. If one teacher or the principal had been packing, the toll may have been much smaller.

    +
    2 Votes
    Slayer_

    It's difficult to defend that Americas obsession with guns is the correct way to live, when there is so much evidence against it. Doesn't stop Americans from defending it however. I am not trying to sound anti gun. But if Americans aren't willing to change things, why would they expect things to change, the school shootings will just keep happening.
    For example, why not make a law that says if the gun is not on your person, then it must be unloaded and locked up safely in a safe.

    +
    1 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    and they should have a trigger lock on & the ammunition should be under a "different" lock & key.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    "How can i use my firearm to defend my home when I can't get to it myself?"

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    there's just no way to make everyone happy I guess.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    Like I said, if its not on your person, it must be locked up.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    Some will say that if the firearm is locked up, they can't defend themselves against intruders breaking into their homes. It will take too long to get the firearm out of the safe, they can't do the combination or find the key in the dark, the flashlight and sounds will alert the intruder, etc.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    But really, if someone breaks in and you have time to get your gun, you really should just get out of the house (or grab kids and get out of the house).

    +
    0 Votes
    AV .

    You could always keep a small pistol hidden somewhere that's accessible. It wouldn't be a problem if you kept the ammo hidden in a separate place. Remember in the past how they used to have books that were actually a place to hide a gun? Something like that. Keep the ammo somewhere else.

    The best thing to do if someone breaks in is try to get out of there. I know in NJ if I shoot someone in my house and they didn't beat the crap out of me first, I'm going to jail and the intruder will walk free. The gun, in my state, is my last resort because I know if I use it in self defense, I could go to jail too.

    AV

    +
    1 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    the comments I posted above are not my own. I am repeating opinions and positions I have heard from others in the past on the subject of requiring guns be stored in safes.

    I've been doing my best to avoid expressing a personal opinion so far, while reserving the option to trot one out at a later date.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Isn't that usually going to scare them away?
    And isn't that a good thing?
    Or is it absolutely necessary to go for that "lawful kill", just because?

    +
    1 Votes
    aidemzo_adanac

    Stop buying so much sh*t and bragging about it. Nothing to steal, nothing to break in for.

    +
    0 Votes

    No

    robo_dev

    If you have a child with 'issues' why have guns in your house at all?

    The Columbine shooters used a torch to get into their grandfather's gun safe.

    My parents used to lock the liquor cabinet, but it had a slight flaw in that if you pulled out the top drawer you could reach in and open the door....alegedly :)

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Sorry, to come in with an ad hominem but your post is just so stupid that I had no choice.

    "SPARE THE ROD AND SPOIL THE CHILD works for a nation, too". Comparison with the other countries in the world, except a couple of third-world countries, puts the lie to that one.

    It's (paraphrased) in the Bible, so I guess you have to believe it.

    Oh, and it doesn't work for children, either. I bet you spanked your children. What did you use? Hand? Belt? Baseball bat? Never did you any harm, did it? Brought you to the fine, upstanding citizen that you are who would shoot a burglar who wants your flat-screen. Me? I just fit better locks and they go somewhere else, too, and nobody ends up dead. I guess, though, the fact that I was never spanked as a child has brought me to what I am: pinko, liberal who believes that voilence begets violence. and that physically disciplining children is pretty much a waste of time.

    Any beggar who is unfortunate to come over to your car to try and get a dollar is likely to get his face blown off. Me? You know, I've never been car-jacked. I just lock the doors. Central locking makes it easy enough. Anyway, it's a crap car and no-one would want it.

    I do hope you never get into one of those really, really passionate arguments with your wife where one party momentarily loses a grip on reality! One of you would be dead. Me? I just dodge the thrown teacup and leave the room until we've cooled down.

    Guns are absolutely no use for self-defence. To think otherwise is delusional. An armed criminal will have a gun to the head of the armed citizen before the armed citizen even realises what is happening. Then the criminal, besides securing the money he is after, will also have another gun. Me? I am aware that this is not Dodge City and it's not going to be a face-to-face "draw, you scum-sucking mollusc" encounter and I'll stay over here where I'm safer from armed criminals and law-abiding armed idiots.

    Your country allows people to take loaded weapons into BARS! Are you TOTALLY INSANE? Me? I reckon you are.

    The world is indeed filled with some terrible people.

    +
    0 Votes
    robo_dev

    Most bars in the States do not allow guns; bouncers routinely use metal detector wands to stop that. Thus people here have shootouts in the parking lot of the bar, because they left their weapon in their vehicle.

    I've known a few people who had people 'out to get them'.

    One was a computer repair tech who turned states-evidence on some drug dealers, and the other was a friend who had the bad habit of dating married women.

    In both cases, their mode of defense was a layered approach with a combination of several handguns, shotguns, as well as tactical lights, video surveillance, and a whole lot of situational awareness.

    Like backing the car into the garage and checking the video surveillance system before opening the garage door. The compter-tech guy carried a 9mm pistol in his belt, a 22 revolver in his ankle holster, a separate revolver in the door of his vehicle and a brass-knuckles with integrated switchblade in his back pocket.

    Ironically he did service work at a military base, so he had to 'check his weapons' each morning in my desk at the offsite IT office and pick them up on the way home, as weapons are not allowed on-base, obviously.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Enough said, surely?

    And your "parking lot shootout" throwaway line makes the dangly bits tighten in this non-gun-toting Brit!

    We still have a huge cultural divide in that an habitual dater of married women would, most likely, get his face rearranged or his kneecaps broken when caught simply because the knife is not a weapon of choice except for teenagers and we just don't have guns.

    +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    As a veteran who has seen hand to hand combat, I don't use those skills at home. Married for over 40 years, never lost a fight as we've never had one. Raised four upstanding citizens and vets too. As a self defense weapon, and at hand, loaded weapon trumps all else. I will not vacate my family and home when intruders enter. Granted there are a few locallities and counties that have some strange concealed carry laws and open carry laws are just an invitation to a shootout. I enjoy your opinion but shall refrain from making any judgement upon your mentality.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    That's what discussion is all about. I certainly don't and won't refrain, although I do apologise for calling you an idiot. We live in different societies and have, obviously, different priorities and viewpoints. I'm finding out that we are more different that I ever realised and I was, unusually for me, lost for words to express myself. Please say what you want. Don't hold back. It aids understanding.

    I'm not a vet as we have a much, much smaller military and have avoided invading anyone since Suez until we took up with the US more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. I consider both of those wars to be pointless and illegal and we, the UK, avoided VietNam because our politicians in those days were a little more sensible than they are now. I have raised no vets although, for whatever it means, my nephew is going to Sandhurst Military College if he passes his exams and the whole family is proud of the achievement. But you should be aware that the concept of the "vet" as used in the US doesn't register in the UK societal consciousness. To be a "vet" implies nothing to most Brits. That's not rudeness, by the way, it's just how it is.

    My comment about the argument with your partner should be read with the backdrop of the huge number of homicides in the US that result from the use of legally-owned guns during an argument that, in my country, would end differently.As you are, obviously, still alive and I have a number of scars from failing to dodge flying crockery I guess you win that one.

    On a more serious note, what is really, really difficult for me to understand is the environment of fear that seems to exist in the US and be driving all of this. You have a loaded weapon and say "I will not vacate my family and home" when confronted by intruders. I have no idea what I would do as I have given it little thought because it is unlikely to happen. I may well return home to find my house burgled but I don't believe that an intruder will target my house if he knows that someone is there.

    The burglary rates for our two countries are close enough for me to ask whether you are over-reacting or I am under-reacting. Which of us is right? You know what I think.

    +
    0 Votes
    mjd420nova

    I have learned to be prepared. I have been accosted on the street and in my vehicle. This was in a city that has a nasty crime problem and I would never go there but for work. Communication is the key, and I know you've heard it before but it's true. No fights, disagreements yes, and when it comes to raising children, the approach must be coordinated as the children find out real fast how to work mom against dad to get what they want. A sharp snap at the right time in a kids development can make the difference and is not meant to harm, it's never meant to harm. There are people in this world who harbor some terrible thoughts and it's hard to tell what a gun buyer has in mind. The availablity of a weapon in a time of anger has tripped up many but this cannot be constituted as a reason to lock things down and deny everyone a constitutional right in this country. The UK has been raised in an entirely different environment with slightly different values. I protect my home with an alarm and the door is posted with an intruder alert. I have had cars crash in front of my home, unto the lawn and into the corner of the house, each time someone came running to the door and pounded loudly and ran off. This has been used as a scam to get some people out of their homes, you just can't be to careful.