At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

[Chicog]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

So you accept that the price other people pay for your right to arm yourself is the occasional massacre of children by a psychopath using legally owned weapons.

[F430murci]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

Yep putting more guns on the street us working well. If you need an AR-15 to protect your family you might need glasses.

Home invasions typically occur during day when no one is home or at night while one is asleep. Are you going to sleep with your AR-15? Chances are you will be waking up looking down the barrel of your own gun. Or perhaps the only reason you got robbed is because they knew you had an AR and they came to get it. Not that many deaths each related to home invasions.

There are more accidental discharge and children deaths in homes due to guns than there are home intruders shot each year by homeowners combined with homeowners killed during home invasion. I would rather protect the children.

[F430murci]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

"[T]he gun s an icon for democracy and personal empowerment. For example, some moviegoers claimed they could have “taken out” Holmes if only they had a gun, although additional people firing guns in a dark theater probably would have increased rather than decreased casualties and injuries."

"A U.S. survey found that guns in the home are more likely to be used by men to intimidate women than against strangers. Indeed, other weapons (e.g., baseball bats, knives) were more commonly used than guns in self-defense against strangers."

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

[submaniac]

Lay off on the AR-15 . Just because someone has an AR-15 does not mean their are some lunatic hell bent on shooting children. The AR-15 is popular because it is a good little gun. Probably the best semi-automatic rifle available to the public. It is light, ergonomic, and incredibly accurate. It is the preferred platform of choice for serious target shooters. It is modular and can be modified in so many different ways (really it's like a lego set in that way). The AR-15 style rifle is used in many target shooting events, in 3 gun events, and in military weapons matches.

[DocN]

Since when is a gun "an icon for democracy"???

It's like saying the Jolly Roger is an icon of free trade!

[Ferangled]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

[beechguy]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

Edited December 19, 2012 by beechguy

[inapeartree]

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

[Chicog]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

A wonderful and isolated example. What if the robbers had seen the guns and opened fire first?

Would you still be so pro guns?

[transam]

With so many firearms in circulation in the USA l think l would have one if l had a cash business. I had guns in the UK before they were banned. But for sure there are many guns out there even with the strong penalties for illegal ownership.

[Scott]

A lot of discussion of guns but little mention of the 27 dead in Connecticut. Please try stay a little closer to the topic, please.

[submaniac]

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

Still think tougher gun laws would not reduce deaths.

Switzerland: one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the world. All males are required to own a sig550 assault rifle for military service. When the military service is over, they are entitled to keep the guns:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Mexico has gun laws much more restrictive than the United States. Result? Mexicans keep guns illegally, and the death rate is higher than the U.S.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/mexico-as-an-example-that-tighter-gun-co

[inapeartree]

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

Still think tougher gun laws would not reduce deaths.

Switzerland: one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the world. All males are required to own a sig550 assault rifle for military service. When the military service is over, they are entitled to keep the guns:

http://www.snopes.co...switzerland.asp

Mexico has gun laws much more restrictive than the United States. Result? Mexicans keep guns illegally, and the death rate is higher than the U.S.

http://reason.com/bl...-tighter-gun-co

Most Mexican drug gangs buy their weapons in America!

[samran]

An OPINION piece from an Australian.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion

America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake

11:01 AM 01/19/2011

Ben-Peter Terpstra

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, media hysteria and bipartisan political support for punishing gun owners increased. As a consequence, our gun laws were tightened.

We could have all responded like rational human beings and grieved for the deceased (35 in all). Instead, militant anti-gun activists viewed the massacre as an opportunity, and set out to punish freedom.

...and the article concludes with...

Gun control is a myth, or rather a mountain of myths sustained by campaigning elites in secure buildings with armed bodyguards: the myth that if law-abiding citizens hand their guns over to the big government to burn, then we will enter a new peace; the myth that if we feel that we are gun controllers, then we are humanitarian citizens even when statistics undermine our self-praising image; and the myth that punishing thousands of farmers and sporting shooters, for the crimes of others, will bring healing. But we (meaning anti-gun Australians) were (and are) wrong.

Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2FSbD1uUu

What a stupid article to quote. It is a stupid article - period.

There was no mass hysteria. The only hysteria came from a (thankfully) small group of gun nuts.

The push for gun control came from the self described most conservative Prime Minister in Australia's history.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

From the man himself:

"A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms.

Gun related dealths are about a quarter of what they are in the US on a per capita basis.

Most importantly, we haven't had a massacre on any scale since 1996.

Fairly good result if you ask me.

[samran]

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

Still think tougher gun laws would not reduce deaths.

Switzerland: one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the world. All males are required to own a sig550 assault rifle for military service. When the military service is over, they are entitled to keep the guns:

http://www.snopes.co...switzerland.asp

Mexico has gun laws much more restrictive than the United States. Result? Mexicans keep guns illegally, and the death rate is higher than the U.S.

http://reason.com/bl...-tighter-gun-co

come on subby - the Swiss and the Israeli's are well trained due to their miltary service. No weekend warriors - or very few to speak of.

[Chicog]

Sliding gently back towards the original topic, let's make it clear that changes to gun control laws are, on their own, not a complete solution to the problem of the spree shooter.

Some serious work needs to be done on mental health care, education and social development as well.

[NomadJoe]

Massacre causes run on guns in the US,

[siamjimi]

Seems the 2nd amendment is more important than school children...

Seems that the true misunderstanding each and every less than knowledgeable anti-gun spouting advocate is people kill people - if a person misspells a word is the fault of the pen or the writer? - if a car crashes and a person is killed is it the cars fault or the driver? - ban all pens and we will definitely make sure no-one misspells a single word again – ban all cars and we have eliminated all these nasty car crashes and needless loss of life - problems solved - yeah lets go home and feel all fuzzy about the dramatic change we have implemented that did not do anything to change the true root cause of the problem.

That’s what is wrong with the current world today - not realistic - people kill people - simple - if not a gun a knife a club a bat or any instrument - it’s all the same

That’s what is currently wrong with people dealing with something they are not capable of understanding – a sympathetic & pathetic way of dealing with all torts and laws - taking guns away from people only leaves innocent people defenseless against the real criminals that still have the illegal guns and the criminals now have the warm and fuzzy feeling there is less chance the victim has a gun bcoz they have been taken away - Duhh!!

America was founded on the thought that a man required a gun to defend himself and his family against the unknown and real threats outside his door - that same mentality still holds true to this day - if not it is needed even more today than yesterday.

This truly sad crime could have been easily prevented without burdening the entire populous with gun controls and taking away 2^nd amendment rights. It’s all quite simple but again – there are those that must complicate the world with their over engineered thinking. Simply put the school should have had security - that’s the key weak link in this tragedy - if this 20 yr old boy was twisted off at his parents and went for revenge - he should have been stopped at the doors and not allowed in without authorization

you might want to check the stats on gun related deaths in other countries pardner, USA tops the list by a lightyear buzz ...just sayin

then again, there may be something in the water supply

A per-capita miscalculation on your part perhaps - some people seem to forget how big and populated the USA is - 360 million I think - with that many people your going to have a higher rate of anything - cancer, car deaths, slipping in the shower, snake bites, etc...

Now if you pick a country like Kuwait, Belize - those stats might mean something.

Jus sayin !!

[samran]

Seems the 2nd amendment is more important than school children...

Seems that the true misunderstanding each and every less than knowledgeable anti-gun spouting advocate is people kill people - if a person misspells a word is the fault of the pen or the writer? - if a car crashes and a person is killed is it the cars fault or the driver? - ban all pens and we will definitely make sure no-one misspells a single word again – ban all cars and we have eliminated all these nasty car crashes and needless loss of life - problems solved - yeah lets go home and feel all fuzzy about the dramatic change we have implemented that did not do anything to change the true root cause of the problem.

That’s what is wrong with the current world today - not realistic - people kill people - simple - if not a gun a knife a club a bat or any instrument - it’s all the same

That’s what is currently wrong with people dealing with something they are not capable of understanding – a sympathetic & pathetic way of dealing with all torts and laws - taking guns away from people only leaves innocent people defenseless against the real criminals that still have the illegal guns and the criminals now have the warm and fuzzy feeling there is less chance the victim has a gun bcoz they have been taken away - Duhh!!

America was founded on the thought that a man required a gun to defend himself and his family against the unknown and real threats outside his door - that same mentality still holds true to this day - if not it is needed even more today than yesterday.

This truly sad crime could have been easily prevented without burdening the entire populous with gun controls and taking away 2^nd amendment rights. It’s all quite simple but again – there are those that must complicate the world with their over engineered thinking. Simply put the school should have had security - that’s the key weak link in this tragedy - if this 20 yr old boy was twisted off at his parents and went for revenge - he should have been stopped at the doors and not allowed in without authorization

you might want to check the stats on gun related deaths in other countries pardner, USA tops the list by a lightyear buzz ...just sayin

then again, there may be something in the water supply

A per-capita miscalculation on your part perhaps - some people seem to forget how big and populated the USA is - 360 million I think - with that many people your going to have a higher rate of anything - cancer, car deaths, slipping in the shower, snake bites, etc...

Now if you pick a country like Kuwait, Belize - those stats might mean something.

Jus sayin !!

erm, clearly you failed maths there Einstein. Doing things on a percapita basis allows like for like comparisons.

http://en.wikipedia....ated_death_rate

US well in the top of the pack. You even beat Kuwait by a large margin.

Also well ahead those countries like Ireland, Australia and NZ where people feel pressed by their governments according to some.

Edited December 19, 2012 by samran

[Ferangled]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

[chuckd]

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

...and all these assumptions are quite easy for you to make since you weren't there.

I seriously doubt if beechguy's parents were the slightest bit concerned what would happen if they had done this in "many countries".

[jpinx]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Was there not a case of a farmer in England being prosecuted for shooting a burglar? I can't remember the outcome, but certainly any robber who comes into a premises for cash will either shoot first, or shoot only when spooked by a silly move from the proprietor. Shooting first is very rare because even the whackiest whacko knows that is going to end badly. Better to threaten and shout and jump around. A sensible shop-owner will open the till and lie down. The police will thank him and the insurance will pay.

Edited December 19, 2012 by jpinx

[Mosha]

What you do if your house is being broken into, is call the police and tell them you've already shot the burglar. They'll turn up pdq then

Edited December 19, 2012 by Mosha

[F430murci]

Another very interesting and informative piece by the NY Times http://www.nytimes.c...-work.html?_r=0

This is the bit I find most interesting, still think tougher gun laws won't mean less gun deaths?

'Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)

Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906

US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960

America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.

Still think tougher gun laws would not reduce deaths.

Switzerland: one of the highest gun ownership percentages in the world. All males are required to own a sig550 assault rifle for military service. When the military service is over, they are entitled to keep the guns:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Mexico has gun laws much more restrictive than the United States. Result? Mexicans keep guns illegally, and the death rate is higher than the U.S.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/mexico-as-an-example-that-tighter-gun-co

Pleas don't talk about Mexico if you have zero clue about their issues. It is not about laws in Mexico, it is about complete inability to enforce and, therefore, zero enforcement of the laws.

Mexico is in a drug war and Narcos control over half of the country. A majority of Mexican states have no law enforcement or government. They are either controlled by Narcos or they are literally killed and no one steps in to replace local police, DAs, judges or Governers because they and their families will be tortured and killed and no one can stop it.

Mexican border patrol is controlled by Narcos so they can take weapons or whatever they wish into Mexico with impunity. Border patrol or local cops that resist are not only killed, but their entire families are kidnapped, tortured, killed and dismembered for public display as examples. So, Mexican border patrol turn the other way and are paid hansomly.

Narcos are armed to the teeth with fully auto assault rifles, RPGs, 50 cal, 60 cal machine guns, 50 cal sniper, tank-like vehicles and any weapon they want. There is absolutely no law enforcement regarding importation of weapons as they control or are the law.

The vast majority of homicides in Mexico are Narco on Narco related to control of four primary trade routes. Very little violence is directed to non-Narco Mexicans and they intentionally keep it that way to try and win public opinion or favor. Zetas always say they are simply killing CDG and Sinola Cartel members responsible for kidnap and tortures in their Narco banners found with bodies hanging from bridges or body parts found in vehicles.

Using Mexico as an example shows no comprehension of Mexico or gun issues faced by either nation.

There is zero law or zero enforcement to stop Narcos from getting whatever weapons they desire. Judges, DAs, and police are tied up and beat with baseball bats before being dismembered if they attempt to stand up to Narcos or enforce any laws.

90 percent of murders in Mexico are not investigated so why do you think there is something like gun enforcement?

[Scott]

The post about Mexico is enlightening, but off-topic.

There is another thread about guns which might be more appropriate for some of these discussions. This thread is aboutthe 27 Dead in Connecticut.

Please stay on-topic.

[F430murci]

Interesting article on this shooting.

"But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It’s not politics. It’s logistics."

"But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing."

Police said Lanza only shot one person with a hand gun, himself.

"When asked whether the handguns were used in any of the killings, the only person whom Vance identified as having been shot with either handgun was the shooter."

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/human_nature/2012/12/connecticut_school_shooting_semi_automatic_weapons_and_other_high_speed.html

Edited December 19, 2012 by F430murci

[jpinx]

Interesting article on this shooting.

"But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It's not politics. It's logistics."

"But not all guns are equal. I've gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing."

Police said Lanza only shot one person with a hand gun, himself.

"When asked whether the handguns were used in any of the killings, the only person whom Vance identified as having been shot with either handgun was the shooter."

http://mobile.slate....high_speed.html

Undoubtedly the shooter chose the heaviest weapon he could lay his hands on to inflict the maximim damage possible in as short a space of time as possible. If there had been no guns available to this shooter - what would he have done to vent his rage/frustration/whatever-it-was that drove the poor blighter to such an end?

And within days another crazy gets his hands on a heavy weapon near Portland and tries to do a repeat. Was he copy-catting? Why was he able to get such a weapon? So many americans, republicans included, that I know are shaking their heads in disbelief....

Really - I and many others on and off TV are heartily sick of the "gun-apologists".

Edited December 19, 2012 by jpinx

[transam]

Interesting article on this shooting.

"But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count. It's not politics. It's logistics."

"But not all guns are equal. I've gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing."

Police said Lanza only shot one person with a hand gun, himself.

"When asked whether the handguns were used in any of the killings, the only person whom Vance identified as having been shot with either handgun was the shooter."

http://mobile.slate....high_speed.html

Undoubtedly the shooter chose the heaviest weapon he could lay his hands on to inflict the maximim damage possible in as short a space of time as possible. If there had been no guns available to this shooter - what would he have done to vent his rage/frustration/whatever-it-was that drove the poor blighter to such an end?

Really - I and many others on and off TV are heartily sick of the "gun-apologists".

Where do religious nuts get a continuous flow of explosives to kill the innocent on a daily basis ?

Sick folk will always find a way. Sadly.

[beechguy]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

So that's a no then but your family has a history of engaging in vigilante justice. In many countries your step dad would have been arrested for manslaughter at the very least; shooting someone dead not being an appropriate response to a minor theft. Were they actually robbing the place or shoplifting?

I gather from your story that these robbers weren't actually armed because had they been, A. the likelihood is that your step dad would have ended up being shot, along with the robber and B. You would have given exacting details of their weapons as you did with your step dad's arms.

If no one had any guns, loss of some money, a call to the police, claim on insurance and no one dead.

Well he was in the U.S. where we are authorized to defend ourselves. One guy came in, my mother recognized him and asked if he needed help, he said no and walked out. She became suspicious and alerted my step father, he moved to a different location, her plan was to lock the door and call the police but the door was pushed open by a gunmen with a shotgun, she happened to fall back out of the way and he got shot and my mother's hand got injured. The other 2 grabbed the guy and headed off to the city where he bled to death. Police didn't give the step father any problem, he surrendered his weapon, a .357 for the investigation, not arrested, and went with my mother for her medical attention. A couple of months later they called him to get his gun. The police believed the plan was to rob them and shoot them, as there were no other witnesses.

Just wanted to add that my step father wasn't happy about shooting the guy, but until he died he never felt he had any other choice under the circumtances. If you feel it was vigilante justice, that would be your problem, as I said, the legal system there certainly didn't have a problem with his actions.

Edited December 19, 2012 by beechguy

[beechguy]

If violent criminals attack my family, I want to put them out of action and a musket is not going to be much help.

I can buy the argument about getting rid of ALL guns, but not the one about only banning semi-automatic weapons. Single shot weapons are not very good for self-defence. The problem is that getting rid of all guns at this point in the US is next to impossible and criminals will still be armed to the teeth. .

The critical word being IF. Have violent criminals ever actually attacked your family and if so was your use of firearms pivotal to both yours and your families survival? I suggest the answer is no, as it is for 99.99999999% of the population of the world and you simply enjoy fantasising about such violent episodes as it helps to validate your views on gun ownership, at least in your own eyes.

When you are faced with the actual realities of your decision to own guns ie that actually you are putting yourself and your family at far greater risk of harm by keeping guns, how do you rationalise this in your head? I'm truly interested to know how someone faced with an overwhelming volume of data telling you that you are putting your family in harms way by your actions, can you still maintain you are correct?

It just seems illogical to the point of insanity and I would humbly suggest that if the criteria for mental health issues would include those that ignore reason in favour of violent fantasy the world would be a much safer place and gun regulations in the states would be less of an issue...

Can't speak for UG, but my mother and step father ran a grocery store in rural community for years, he carried a .38 in his pocket, and kept a .357 at the meat counter. One day 3 guys decided to rob them, probably for drug money, it didn't work out too well for them, one dead and the other two in jail for quite awhile. Was he paranoid? I don't think so, just sometimes people are prepared for the worst when it happens. And as along as people don't invade our homes or buinesses nothing will happen to them.

A wonderful and isolated example. What if the robbers had seen the guns and opened fire first?

Would you still be so pro guns?

Yes, I would still be pro gun, I grew up and around hunting firearms, been working around the military, etc. I gave more details in another post, as it happened can't say I'm happy that guy died, but better him than my mother and step father.