NationStates Jolt Archive

People are not free in Russia. They are free in America.

In Russia, everyone is equal. In America, they discriminate against blacks, Mexicans on the basis of race. In America, women are not allowed to advance beyond glass ceiling.
In Russia, there is no glass ceiling. In Russia, women are equal with men in all work environments.

In Russia, everyone is equal. In America, they discriminate against blacks, Mexicans on the basis of race. In America, women are not allowed to advance beyond glass ceiling.
In Russia, there is no glass ceiling. In Russia, women are equal with men in all work environments.

You're saying that discrimination does not exist in Russia? Didn't some Russian government official make some very strong anti-homosexual statements not too long ago?

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but, although Nebraska is a Shall-issue CCW state, the mall in question is a "Gun-Free Zone".

Worked really well here.

lol... granted.

But then they also make things like genocide and war possible/easier too, and no one ever proposes to solve genocide by getting rid of all the guns.

Personally, I'm not suggesting to confiscate all guns in the US, either.
As far as I can see, society in the US as it is right now would probably collapse under a massive crime wave if that was in fact attempted. But, just as with genocide and war, I would suggest getting to the root causes and working with them.
In the US, that's first of all the cultural notion that everybody is responsible for protecting his or her possessions/reputation/family, violently and at gunpoint if given the chance.
To make that work, the police force needs to be way more effective than it appears to be now.
The second big problem that would need to be addressed is the wide gap between rich and poor. Relative and preceived poverty is a factor that will make people aggressive. Pair that with the availability of guns (and let's face it, people like to use guns in crimes for one simple reason : they make it so much easier.) and the non-presence of police and prosecution, and you've got yourself a big problem.

That would be my take on the issue. I'm fairly confident it would help minimise the currently massive problem, but I'm also accutely aware that many, if not most, USAmericans will regard both suggestions as going against the very mindset that "made the nation great". A mentality that doesn't take society as an entity, but rather places the responsibility to succeed or to fail, protect or be killed squarely on the individual.
The downsides of a society like this are school shootings and the like, in abundance. But you have to take the good with the bad in this case.

Typical of the US. In Russia they don't have mass shootings at malls or in churches.

In Russia, they have law and order. People are safe in Russia. They are not safe in America.

Heh yeah sure if you have enough money for the bribes!

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but, although Nebraska is a Shall-issue CCW state, the mall in question is a "Gun-Free Zone".

Worked really well here.

Are you trying to say it would have worked better if more guns had been involved???

Are you trying to say it would have worked better if more guns had been involved???

Didn't you hear? Buying a legal gun now comes with a fancy 'Bad guy radar'. It allows you to identify the bad guy in any situation.

Didn't you hear? Buying a legal gun now comes with a fancy 'Bad guy radar'. It allows you to identify the bad guy in any situation.

Is it also equipped with a block-mechanism for when it doesn't detect any bad guys on the radar? You know, for those dickheads who'd fire anyway, cause they heard gunshots?

Is it also equipped with a block-mechanism for when it doesn't detect any bad guys on the radar? You know, for those dickheads who'd fire anyway, cause they heard gunshots?

Yup. The gun just won't fire unless it's pointed at an evil doer of some kind.

Yup. The gun just won't fire unless it's pointed at an evil doer of some kind.

How does that know, and evil as dictated by.....?

What i found to be interesting is that the shooter was killed by an ARMED church security guard. This is for a CHURCH! They didnt even have any armed guards anywhere NEAR the mall shooter and the shooter had tons of time to kill all he wanted till he turned the gun on himself. In this case, with guns far more obviously accessable, the shooter was shot and killed before he could do even more damage.

How does that know, and evil as dictated by.....?

It's a joke you see. Making fun of the assumption that if the mall goers had been armed one of them would have simply shot the assailant, and that would have been the end of it.

It's a joke you see. Making fun of the assumption that if the mall goers had been armed one of them would have simply shot the assailant, and that would have been the end of it.

.. as opposed to the far more likely situation that several armed people would have heard shots, pulled their guns, ran toward the shots they heard and shot the first other guy running with a gun, which would have most likely resulted in far more deaths and injuries.

What i found to be interesting is that the shooter was killed by an ARMED church security guard. This is for a CHURCH! They didnt even have any armed guards anywhere NEAR the mall shooter and the shooter had tons of time to kill all he wanted till he turned the gun on himself. In this case, with guns far more obviously accessable, the shooter was shot and killed before he could do even more damage.

ERROR: One person killed twice in single incident

.. as opposed to the far more likely situation that several armed people would have heard shots, pulled their guns, ran toward the shots they heard and shot the first other guy running with a gun, which would have most likely resulted in far more deaths and injuries.

It's kind of amusing. One brave shopper pulls his gun and blasts the mall shooter, and is then shot by another brave shopper, who is then, in turn, blown away by another brave shopper, usw. The police arrive to find an epic gun battle in the mall, with everyone defending themselves against everyone else.

It's a joke you see. Making fun of the assumption that if the mall goers had been armed one of them would have simply shot the assailant, and that would have been the end of it.

Gahh and I was joining in!

It's kind of amusing. One brave shopper pulls his gun and blasts the mall shooter, and is then shot by another brave shopper, who is then, in turn, blown away by another brave shopper, usw. The police arrive to find an epic gun battle in the mall, with everyone defending themselves against everyone else.

i saw game ad with something like that at youtube as it was pulled off TV

ERROR: One person killed twice in single incident

ERROR: Reading comprehension.

OR: Why would there be church security guards in a mall?

ERROR: Reading comprehension.

OR: Why would there be church security guards in a mall?

Unless... was it the church of commerce?

ERROR: Reading comprehension.

OR: Why would there be church security guards in a mall?

That too, but the one guy killing himself and being killed by Church security guards stuck out more.

It's kind of amusing. One brave shopper pulls his gun and blasts the mall shooter, and is then shot by another brave shopper, who is then, in turn, blown away by another brave shopper, usw. The police arrive to find an epic gun battle in the mall, with everyone defending themselves against everyone else.

And since said scenario nor anything similar has happened anywhere CCW is legal, it has as much bearing as the "Wild West" claims that were thrown around when the laws were being passed.

Why rely on facts when you have an ideology to fall back on.

A bunch of people have been killed in 2 church shootings within the last 24 hours, unless your living under a rock, i assumed the reference was clear. My error.

Why rely on facts when you have an ideology to fall back on.

I keep saying this, and people laugh at me?

I keep saying this, and people laugh at me?


That's about it. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Bunch posted a list of murders using "high powered weapons". Nearly every one was in a "Gun Free Zone" by a prohibited person. He's also lied publicly saying that the '94 AWB made it illegal to own 30 round magazines.

It's also been reported that the mall has taken down their signs stating that no weapons are allowed.

And since said scenario nor anything similar has happened anywhere CCW is legal, it has as much bearing as the "Wild West" claims that were thrown around when the laws were being passed.

Why rely on facts when you have an ideology to fall back on.
Amusing, since that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Some people were acting like everything would have just been fine and dandy if the shoppers had been armed. Which isn't necessarily true. It might have been, but one shopper with a gun doens't look all that different from another, so it's certainly believable that someone could make a mistake and shoot the wrong person. Or miss.
A bunch of people have been killed in 2 church shootings within the last 24 hours, unless your living under a rock, i assumed the reference was clear. My error.
I've been asleep/studying/in college for most of those 24 hours. Checking the US news hasn't been a priority.

I've been asleep/studying/in college for most of those 24 hours. Checking the US news hasn't been a priority.

You should keep closer track of us. We're craaazy! :p

Better question, why are there church security guards at church? It was the 'church' of scientology wasn't it? Or one of those televangelist 'churches'?

http://caosblog.com/images/gun_control_works.gif

You should keep closer track of us. We're craaazy! :p
Who's we? I thought you worked alone?
Better question, why are there church security guards at church? It was the 'church' of scientology wasn't it? Or one of those televangelist 'churches'?

I guess they're worried about violent heathens.

Who's we? I thought you worked alone?

Let's hope so. ;)

Security guard at church was an unpaid volunteer with their personal firearm.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.

"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.

Are you trying to say it would have worked better if more guns had been involved???

No. I am saying that these "Gun-Free Zones" only restrict law abiding, trained, background checked, and licensed Concealed Weapons holders from carrying.

I am not saying that this would have turned out differently. I do not have a time machine. I am saying, however, that an armed and licensed private citizen may have reduced the number of deaths or even prevented the crime. It worked for the Colorado church.

On a related note, a Firsthand Account of the Omaha mall shooting (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html).

No. I am saying that these "Gun-Free Zones" only restrict law abiding, trained, background checked, and licensed Concealed Weapons holders from carrying.

I am not saying that this would have turned out differently. I do not have a time machine. I am saying, however, that an armed and licensed private citizen may have reduced the number of deaths or even prevented the crime. It worked for the Colorado church.

On a related note, a Firsthand Account of the Omaha mall shooting (http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html).

So the fact that in a seated congregation it's slightly easier to make out the guy who started firing than it would be in a crowded mall with lots of shoppers everywhere wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the judgement of the would-be defenders, you think?

So the fact that in a seated congregation it's slightly easier to make out the guy who started firing than it would be in a crowded mall with lots of shoppers everywhere wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the judgement of the would-be defenders, you think?

When one of them is holding a large semi-automatic rifle, yes. In Colorado, an armed citizen saved lives. It is possible that an armed citizen would have saved lives in Omaha.

Amusing, since that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Some people were acting like everything would have just been fine and dandy if the shoppers had been armed. Which isn't necessarily true. It might have been, but one shopper with a gun doens't look all that different from another, so it's certainly believable that someone could make a mistake and shoot the wrong person. Or miss.

Crowds, Loud Noises, Adrenaline, Suicidal Maniacs and lots of people with guns don't mix terribly well.

Security guard at church was an unpaid volunteer with their personal firearm.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Boyd said the female security guard was a hero in preventing further bloodshed, rushing to confront the gunman just inside the church.

"She probably saved over a hundred lives," Boyd said of the guard, whom he said is not a law enforcement officer and used her personal weapon.

Someone might want to bookmark that link, because an example like that seems to get posted hardly ever.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, it looks like it's that time again; a tragedy driven NS general debate on the efficacy of lax gun control in the states.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm

Now I actually think the freedom of access to firearms in the States is necessary, or at least unavoidable, given the circumstances, but continued stories like this don't exactly help the argument.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Ah so lack of gun control is responsible. And there I was thinking that it was the world being so shit that it drives people insane. But no, it's a lack of government involvement. How silly of me.

Someone might want to bookmark that link, because an example like that seems to get posted hardly ever.

It's not reported all that often. Defensive firearm use just doesn't drive the ratings like Lindsey Lohan going on a drunken drive again. If you dig for them, they're there.

It's not reported all that often. Defensive firearm use just doesn't drive the ratings like Lindsey Lohan going on a drunken drive again. If you dig for them, they're there.

That's why it needs to be bookmarked and brought up.

Are you trying to say it would have worked better if more guns had been involved???

Didn't you hear? Buying a legal gun now comes with a fancy 'Bad guy radar'. It allows you to identify the bad guy in any situation.

Is it also equipped with a block-mechanism for when it doesn't detect any bad guys on the radar? You know, for those dickheads who'd fire anyway, cause they heard gunshots?

Yup. The gun just won't fire unless it's pointed at an evil doer of some kind.

It's a joke you see. Making fun of the assumption that if the mall goers had been armed one of them would have simply shot the assailant, and that would have been the end of it.

.. as opposed to the far more likely situation that several armed people would have heard shots, pulled their guns, ran toward the shots they heard and shot the first other guy running with a gun, which would have most likely resulted in far more deaths and injuries.

It's kind of amusing. One brave shopper pulls his gun and blasts the mall shooter, and is then shot by another brave shopper, who is then, in turn, blown away by another brave shopper, usw. The police arrive to find an epic gun battle in the mall, with everyone defending themselves against everyone else.

ITT: circle jerking

And since said scenario nor anything similar has happened anywhere CCW is legal, it has as much bearing as the "Wild West" claims that were thrown around when the laws were being passed.

Why rely on facts when you have an ideology to fall back on.

Pretty much sums it up.

Say, you two, have you ever tried to tell a civil engineer how to plan a building? Have you ever told a quantum physicist how wrong they are and that your own theory is totally awesome? Have you ever told a stunt pilot how he could be flying a little better?

So why are you telling trained marksmen how to shoot? Especially when, as Kecibukia points out, you have no evidence to support the claim?

Then, calls for more civilian disarmament. Using the dead for political gain.

Well, the living make pretty lousy examples.

"I'd like to tell you a story about a little boy named Elmer Briggs. Elmer was a bright, happy four-year-old child. He had two loving parents, a baby sister, and more friends than anyone could count. One day, while he was at the mall with his play group, Elmer Briggs was not killed by an insane gunman. He lives to this day. How much longer will we allow this to go on, America?"

See what I mean?

So why are you telling trained marksmen how to shoot? Especially when, as Kecibukia points out, you have no evidence to support the claim?

Don't bother. They're Europeans. They don't know their Colts from their Smith & Wessons.

Well, the living make pretty lousy examples.

"I'd like to tell you a story about a little boy named Elmer Briggs. Elmer was a bright, happy four-year-old child. He had two loving parents, a baby sister, and more friends than anyone could count. One day, while he was at the mall with his play group, Elmer Briggs was not killed by an insane gunman. He lives to this day. How much longer will we allow this to go on, America?"

See what I mean?

I think those that weren't shot at the Colorado Church due to the actions of an armed volunteer would disagree.

I think those that weren't shot at the Colorado Church due to the actions of an armed volunteer would disagree.

Indeed, a lawfully armed civilian saved countless lives, people who would have been murdered otherwise, exactly as is the intent and function of civilian carry rights.

It is not the first time and will not be the last.

If anyone on this forum is unfortunate enough to be attacked my a maniac, they would be so lucky as to have an armed civilian come to their defense and save their life, as happened in Colorado.

Indeed, a lawfully armed civilian saved countless lives, people who would have been murdered otherwise, exactly as is the intent and function of civilian carry rights.
I thought that the "intent and function of civilian carry rights" was for self protection?

I thought that the "intent and function of civilian carry rights" was for self protection?

Well, since the volunteer security guard was in the church at the time of the shooting (and therefore a potential victim), it could be argued that the person did use their firearm for self protection. The protection of the other members of the congregation was a very nice bonus. :D

I thought that the "intent and function of civilian carry rights" was for self protection?

In situations like this, collective defense is a byproduct of your own self defense.

Don't bother. They're Europeans. They don't know their Colts from their Smith & Wessons.

But they live happily in countries that haven't known school shootings and in which not even the police carry guns...

You know, given the choice I'd rather not know my Smith from my Colt, when it means that all I have to fear when christmas shopping are Debenhams' store assistants trying to talk me into getting a store card.

I thought that the "intent and function of civilian carry rights" was for self protection?

Thats a small minded and narrow definition of what is more broadly and correctly "The defense of human life."

Typically the life you save is your own, but as we can see here, it can sometimes be scores of people.

I hope for the sake of that brave woman that the knowledge of the lives she saved can outweigh the horror she must feel at having had to take another person's life.

Thats a small minded and narrow definition of what is more broadly and correctly "The defense of human life."
I thought that is what the police are for?

But they live happily in countries that haven't known school shootings and in which not even the police carry guns...

You know, given the choice I'd rather not know my Smith from my Colt, when it means that all I have to fear when christmas shopping are Debenhams' store assistants trying to talk me into getting a store card.

That makes two of us that do not live in fear of firearms.

Oh, and it's Smith & Wesson.

I thought that is what the police are for?
Do you want to live in a society where there are cops everywhere? Do you want to live in a police state?

I thought that is what the police are for?

Nope. You can thank the trial lawyers for that.

I thought that is what the police are for?

The police can't be everywhere at once, nor can they always arrive at the scene on time.

Personal protection is a personal responsibility. Police are there to help you when they are present. When they are not present, that responsibility is left to that individual. This will never change - and if it does ever change, I question whether I would want to live in that environment. I'm sure there are many other civil rights which would have been sacrificed in order to achieve that.

These shootings are sad. But attacking firearms doesn't attack the root cause of the problem. Perhaps instead of shuffling people around, or being scared of them when they display aggressive or disfunctional behavior - we spend the time to give them the care they need? Will the end result cost less than the cleanup of a mass shooting, in both monetary and psychological terms?

The police can't be everywhere at once, nor can they always arrive at the scene on time.

They seem to manage ok here....

They seem to manage ok here....

Unless you live in a police state, I fail to see how the police can be so infallible.

Unless you live in a police state, I fail to see how the police can be so infallible.

Never said they were infallible, I just said that for some reason or another, the public here seems better protected, despite being generally unarmed, than in the USA.

Never said they were infallible, I just said that for some reason or another, the public here seems better protected, despite being generally unarmed, than in the USA.

That's because Irish people are too nice to commit crime.

That's because Irish people are too nice to commit crime.

*roflmao
You haven't met many Irish, have you, sunny?

Another shooting. Lovely,.

I really want to feel bad; I really do. But dammit if the media hasn't desensitized me to this kind of thing.

After all, when all you see is death on t.v., the news and pretty much anything else, you kinda become desensitized to death that doesn't happen in large numbers or isn't close to home.

I also would like to note that kids do this because of being troubled, and knowing they'll be on t.v. They'll be "famous" as many of them say. Our own media working against us. Gotta love it,

-The Cynical Bastard.

Clearly Judge Death had the perfect solution to problems like this.

*roflmao
You haven't met many Irish, have you, sunny?

TBH, no, but I've heard the Irish are a pleasant and affable lot.

To keep the thread going, we have the latest US mass shooting:

6 shot after exiting Vegas school bus (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071212/D8TFILD83.html)

Dec 11, 7:24 PM (ET)

By RYAN NAKASHIMA

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Six junior high or high school students were shot Tuesday after they got off a school bus, and two were critically hurt, police said.

Gunshots rang out in northeast Las Vegas just before 2 p.m., Officer Bill Cassell said.

Six young people were transported to area hospitals. Four had minor gunshot injuries and two were in critical condition, Cassell said.

At least two people are believed to have taken part in the shootings, he said. Police were not saying whether the shooting suspects were on foot or in a vehicle.
So far no word in any fatalities or suspects, as the story is only just breaking. Hopefully, the two in critical condition will recover.

Damn Holiday season.

To keep the thread going, we have the latest US mass shooting:

6 shot after exiting Vegas school bus (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071212/D8TFILD83.html)


So far no word in any fatalities or suspects, as the story is only just breaking. Hopefully, the two in critical condition will recover.

Well this is just super. :mad:

I thought that is what the police are for?

You're confused and mistaken.

Do you want to live in a society where there are cops everywhere? Do you want to live in a police state?
An effective police force, effective gun control, and an effective judicary are the necessary requirements to lowering gun crimes.

Expecting ordinary citizens to "defend" the public sounds like a very scary proposition to say the least.

very scary proposition

The crux of the argument.

Don't bother. They're Europeans. They don't know their Colts from their Smith & Wessons.

Which is perhaps the reason why Europeans need not comment on issues within the US. I don't discuss the political climate of European countries on the basis that I don't know squat about them. Their political and social climates are so vastly different from ours that I can't possibly approach the level of understanding that a local person has simply from living and experiencing those climates. The reverse is also true.

The crux of the argument.

The crux of the anti-carry argument being that guns are loud and scary things that drive normal human beings to mass murder?

I used to be scared to death of knives to the point where I'd stay at least five feet from anyone using one, including kitchen knives being used to prepare food. It was almost funny to watch me go around the kitchen to avoid them, I imagine. Eventually I wised up and realized that knives don't jump out and cut you, and if you're careful with them and know what you're doing, you'll be completely fine. (In b4 'guns aren't tools')

The problem here is that guns aren't tools and are made specifically to kill.
To maim.
To Slaughter.
And to kill.

There is no other purpose for a gun, there never has been, there never will be, there also never is no other purpose, and never has been one not ever.

Interesting note here:

Firearms were a lot easier to get before the Gun Control Act of 1968. You could buy just about anything (including automatic weapons and things now classified as "Destructive devices") at your local gun shop or from a catalog. Before about the mid 70's, gun crime was substantially lower then it is today. There almost no mass shootings, fewer school shootings, and lower gun crime.

Now, there must be some reason that gun crime has increased even though gun control has increased. Surely.

Now, there must be some reason that gun crime has increased even though gun control has increased. Surely.

Perhaps it is like sexual tension/repression.
The less of the gun we experience, the more violent and sporadic our experiences with the gun. This leads to violence and...other bad things.

An effective police force, effective gun control, and an effective judicary are the necessary requirements to lowering gun crimes.
Describe to me your idea of an effective police force. Just how many cops should there be? Just a few patrolling to keep the peace or one standing on every street corner? Should there be security cameras in all public places? Should there be security cameras in private places? Would you support sacrificing rights in the name of security?

And what do you consider effective gun control? Do you think people should be allowed to have guns? If so, how many and what kinds? What would you restrict? Who would you restrict them from? How would you rewrite American gun law? Would you restrict ammunition? If so, what types?

And what do you consider an effective judiciary? Do you think that the American court system is seriously flawed or somehow broken? If so, what would you change about it?

Expecting ordinary citizens to "defend" the public sounds like a very scary proposition to say the least.
Why? There may be as many as 220 million guns in America, only about 1% are believed to be used for defensive purposes in any one year and less than 1% being . According to a December 1993 Gallup survey, 49% of U.S. households reported owning a gun, and 31% of adults reported personally owning one. These figures indicate that there are about 47.6 million households with a gun, with perhaps 93 million, or 49% of the adult U.S. population living in households with guns, and about 59.1 million adults personally owning a gun. If there are that many millions of guns in that many millions of hands and there aren't that many millions of deaths then what is so frightening about the public posessing guns?

Perhaps it is like sexual tension/repression.
The less of the gun we experience, the more violent and sporadic our experiences with the gun. This leads to violence and...other bad things.

I did not say that, did I? Do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that something must have changed in society (or something, IDK) that increased gun crime while guns were harder to get.

The problem here is that guns aren't tools and are made specifically to kill.
To maim.
To Slaughter.
And to kill.

There is no other purpose for a gun, there never has been, there never will be, there also never is no other purpose, and never has been one not ever.

Somebody better inform all the manufacturers of target firearms then. While they're at it, they should also inform all the manufacturers of target ammunition, and whomever invented the wadcutter bullet. Oh, and don't forget all the people that organize or compete in target competitions.

Saw this one on my Comcast homepage. It never rains but it pours, huh?

6 Shot After Leaving Vegas School Bus

By RYAN NAKASHIMA and KATHLEEN HENNESSEY, AP
45 minutes ago

LAS VEGAS —

Assailants shot six young people Tuesday at a school bus stop, wounding two critically, in a midday attack that followed a fight over a high school girl, authorities said.

School police arrested three teenagers in the fight that happened hours before the shooting, Sheriff Doug Gillespie said. Investigators were still seeking two gunmen, who were believed to have fled on foot from the scene of the shooting, a working class neighborhood of northeast Las Vegas.

An 18-year-old man was in critical condition and a 17-year-old boy was upgraded to serious condition, both with gunshots to the torso, said Cheryl Persinger, a University Medical Center spokeswoman.

Four people, including at least two boys and a girl who are under 18, were treated for gunshot injuries to their arms and legs and released, she said. All four are students at Mojave High School, Gillespie said.

Authorities would not release any other information about the two victims who were still hospitalized late Tuesday. All six had just stepped off the bus, which was coming from the high school, authorities said.

Investigators initially looked into the possibility of gang involvement, but Gillespie said it appeared the shootings were the second stage of a confrontation over a girl.

Gillespie called the bus stop shooting "a carryover from what took place. This is not a random act."

Those arrested after the school fight are about 16, Clark County School District police Lt. Ken Young said. Mojave had some 2,300 students last year, about evenly divided among blacks, whites and Hispanics, according to district materials.

The shooting occurred just before 2 p.m., a couple of blocks from two elementary schools. Both were locked down temporarily but reopened in about an hour, district spokesman Michael Rodriguez said.

Investigators said they found 9 mm and .45-caliber shell casings at the scene.

Archie Gorai, 22, who lives about a block from the site of the shooting, said he heard about eight gunshots while he was wrapping Christmas presents at his home.

"I told my wife it was gunshots. She thought it was firecrackers," Gorai said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

link. (http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/12/Bus.Stop.Shooting/?cvqh=itn_teensshot)

That's it! I'm taking my car to a bus stop of 1st graders!

I did not say that, did I? Do not put words in my mouth.

I am saying that something must have changed in society (or something, IDK) that increased gun crime while guns were harder to get.
What? Putting words in your mouth? I think I'll refrain from stuffing your oral cavity with words. You some kind of mouth fetishist? I am damn sure those words were coming out of my mouth. :p

Somebody better inform all the manufacturers of target firearms then. While they're at it, they should also inform all the manufacturers of target ammunition, and whomever invented the wadcutter bullet. Oh, and don't forget all the people that organize or compete in target competitions.
I agree. Those targets lead cruel lives of captivity with nothing but hot bullets to look forward to.

I agree. Those targets lead cruel lives of captivity with nothing but hot bullets to look forward to.

The problem is, the paper targets are fomenting rebellion. We have to stop it now, before it's too late! :p

The problem is, the paper targets are fomenting rebellion. We have to stop it now, before it's too late! :p
:eek:
Blast! I knew we should have gone with cardboard, it always was more stable.

What? Putting words in your mouth? I think I'll refrain from stuffing your oral cavity with words. You some kind of mouth fetishist? I am damn sure those words were coming out of my mouth. :p


Curses! You have fooled me with your impeccable wit and arousing oral cavity!

Here's an idea. Let's give everyone a nuclear device, so in that way MAD Theory will keep everyone in check. And if someone decides to set one off, we'll all be dead and there's no more senseless violent crimes.

Now, there must be some reason that gun crime has increased even though gun control has increased. Surely.

Depends on what sort of crime. School shootings like these? Probably increased amounts of stress, pressure to excel, presence of violence, a glorification of the idea of getting even violently. That sort of thing.

Other gun crimes? Depends on the type.

The problem here is that guns aren't tools and are made specifically to kill.
To maim.
To Slaughter.
And to kill.

There is no other purpose for a gun, there never has been, there never will be, there also never is no other purpose, and never has been one not ever.

Ah yes, the "Argument from design," as I like to call it.

It's a lot like the "argument from purpose" people give in anti-smoking debates. They don't see a "purpose" in the cigarette and feel it should be outlawed based on that. Similarly, you don't see any legal "purpose" in the gun and feel it should be outlawed based on that. Things, like people, are not bound by "design."

Though you might like it if it were so, it's not the case that owning a gun constitutes intent to commit a violent crime.

Ah yes, the "Argument from design," as I like to call it.

It's a lot like the "argument from purpose" people give in anti-smoking debates. They don't see a "purpose" in the cigarette and feel it should be outlawed based on that. Similarly, you don't see any legal "purpose" in the gun and feel it should be outlawed based on that. Things, like people, are not bound by "design."

Though you might like it if it were so, it's not the case that owning a gun constitutes intent to commit a violent crime.

Aside from ignoring the detail that projectile weaponry of one kind or another were often used as hunting tools in human history, the Argument from Design approach fails simply because it doesn't take human creativity into account. It's all too easy to turn many a tool with a purpose into a "weapon with no purpose other than to kill."

Take the Okinawans for example. When they were colonized by the Japanese ages ago, they were forbidden from possessing or using metal swords. So what did they do? They developed a form of Karate to fight unarmed, and they turned several farming implements into martial arts weapons. A mill handle became the tonfa, harvest sickles became the kama, and rice flails were transformed into nunchaku.

http://caosblog.com/images/gun_control_works.gif
Guilt by association? Oh please :rolleyes:
ITT: circle jerking
You're just jealous you're not involved :p
Don't bother. They're Europeans. They don't know their Colts from their Smith & Wessons.
It's funny how you say that as if it makes a difference.
Do you want to live in a society where there are cops everywhere? Do you want to live in a police state?
Conversely, do you want to live in a society where there are no police and the task of public protection is left solely with the public? No? Well perhaps we can find some kind of happy balance.
TBH, no, but I've heard the Irish are a pleasant and affable lot.
Well we did pretty much invent terrorism. And we definately invented kneecapping.
To keep the thread going, we have the latest US mass shooting:

6 shot after exiting Vegas school bus (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071212/D8TFILD83.html)


So far no word in any fatalities or suspects, as the story is only just breaking. Hopefully, the two in critical condition will recover.

Saw this one on my Comcast homepage. It never rains but it pours, huh?



link. (http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/12/Bus.Stop.Shooting/?cvqh=itn_teensshot)
Is it crazy season in America or something? Seriously, wtf?
*snip*

Fail for taking Bann-ed seriously :p

Conversely, do you want to live in a society where there are no police and the task of public protection is left solely with the public? No? Well perhaps we can find some kind of happy balance.
I wouldn't mind that. People would be free to start up private police forces that would patrol neighborhoods under their protection. I'm not saying it would be perfect but when the choice is sacrificing my freedom for a little safety then I choose the danger.

Canuckistani has still not answered my questions so perhaps you should. Describe to me your idea of an effective police force. Just how many cops should there be? Just a few patrolling to keep the peace or one standing on every street corner? Should there be security cameras in all public places? Should there be security cameras in private places? Would you support sacrificing rights in the name of security?

And what do you consider effective gun control? Do you think people should be allowed to have guns? If so, how many and what kinds? What would you restrict? Who would you restrict them from? How would you rewrite American gun law? Would you restrict ammunition? If so, what types?

And what do you consider an effective judiciary? Do you think that the American court system is seriously flawed or somehow broken? If so, what would you change about it?

I wouldn't mind that. People would be free to start up private police forces that would patrol neighborhoods under their protection. I'm not saying it would be perfect but when the choice is sacrificing my freedom for a little safety then I choose the danger.

So you're opposed to government police but you're open to private police forces? Take a look at Iraq as a good example of what happens when a private police force with no accountability to others is allowed to have free reign. Hey, if you're all for danger then having loose cannon Blackwater types shooting up you and your neighbors for no rational reason is right up your alley.

And what do you consider effective gun control? Do you think people should be allowed to have guns? If so, how many and what kinds? What would you restrict? Who would you restrict them from? How would you rewrite American gun law? Would you restrict ammunition? If so, what types?

Effective gun control can only succeed when a strong background check and psychiatric evaluation is tied in to it. Giving a gun to someone with anger management issues or serious mental health problems but no criminal records is just as or even more dangerous than giving a gun to someone with a criminal record but with a significantly more stable mental health.

Describe to me your idea of an effective police force.
One would have to look at the models that are out there. Which ones are working and which ones are defective. In 1990, New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Recent_years)had 2262 murders, and was down to 539 murders in 2005:

As of 2005, New York City has the lowest crime rate among the ten largest cities in the United States.[17] Since 1991, the city has seen a continuous fifteen-year trend of decreasing crime. Neighborhoods that were once considered dangerous are now much safer. Violent crime in the city has dropped by 75% in the last twelve years and the murder rate in 2005 was at its lowest level since 1963: there were 539 murders that year, for a murder rate of 6.58 per 100,000 people, compared to 2262 murders in 1990. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime (with about the same crime rate as Boise, Idaho).[18]

Just how many cops should there be?
I guess as many as it takes to get the message across?

Should there be security cameras in all public places? Should there be security cameras in private places?
Let's face facts....in today's society, security cameras are everywhere and people with cell phones can take pictures and record videos.

Would you support sacrificing rights in the name of security?
That is already happening in the US since the enactment of the Patriot Act?

And what do you consider effective gun control?
Registration, wait times, proper storage, gun safety training, significant background checks (nothing "instant"), and proper enforcement of the laws.

Do you think people should be allowed to have guns?
As long as they meet the stringent requirements for gun ownership.

If so, how many and what kinds? What would you restrict? Who would you restrict them from? How would you rewrite American gun law? Would you restrict ammunition? If so, what types?
Personal armouries should be discouraged and assault type weapons should not be for public sale.

One would have to look at the models that are out there. Which ones are working and which ones are defective. In 1990, New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City#Recent_years)had 2262 murders, and was down to 539 murders in 2005:

So ones that actually enforce the laws instead of committing them.


Let's face facts....in today's society, security cameras are everywhere and people with cell phones can take pictures and record videos.

Still an after the fact measure.


That is already happening in the US since the enactment of the Patriot Act?

So we should do it more? You support the Patriot Act?


Registration, wait times, proper storage, gun safety training, significant background checks (nothing "instant"), and proper enforcement of the laws.

None of which have been shown to reduce crime except for the last.


As long as they meet the stringent requirements for gun ownership.

Based off of the discriminatory requirements set by those who have protection.


Personal armouries should be discouraged and assault type weapons should not be for public sale.

Define "Personal armory".

Define "Assault Type Weapon".

Shall we go by the definition just set by the Cook County, IL board?

"Any weapon that the President, the Board, or the Sheriff defines by regulation as an assault weapon because the design or operation of such weapon is inappropriate for lawful use."

ie. whatever they feel like.

Guilt by association? Oh please :rolleyes:

Or an emotional argument, kinda like 'guns are scary'. Neither is acceptable.

You're just jealous you're not involved :p

We're making up for lost time now. Where'd the other side of the argument go?

It's funny how you say that as if it makes a difference.

It doesn't make much of one at all. Knowing how the laws, culture, and reality of how the US works is far more important. I don't believe that someone who has lived the majority of their life outside of the US (or any country, for that matter) can meaningfully comment on its politics or culture.

None of which have been shown to reduce crime except for the last.

For epic truth.

Training as a requirement for a carry licence, however, is something I can get behind. If you can't sit through a couple hours of safety/gun law classes, I don't want you in charge of anyone's safety, not even your own.

Define "Assault Type Weapon".

Assault is a crime, not a weapon. The problem with the phrase 'assault weapon' is that it has no meaning. You could ask several different people (or worse, reference several different laws) and get widely varying answers.

Effective gun control can only succeed when a strong background check and psychiatric evaluation is tied in to it. Giving a gun to someone with anger management issues or serious mental health problems but no criminal records is just as or even more dangerous than giving a gun to someone with a criminal record but with a significantly more stable mental health.

So we need to enforce the laws we have now? Whoa. Mind-blowing revelation, that is. Do we even need to mention Cho?

So ones that actually enforce the laws instead of committing them.
That certainly would be a good start.

Still an after the fact measure.
Still, I would imagine that such devices have some deterrent effect.

So we should do it more? You support the Patriot Act?
I am certainly not a fan of your Patriot Act.....my answer to Indri on that particular question was more tongue in cheek rather than substantive.

None of which have been shown to reduce crime except for the last.
That is certainly debatable. For example, almost $8 Million worth of firearms were stolen in Florida alone last year. What is with that? That is a lot of guns that are going to end up in the hands of criminals.

What is also mind boggling is the fact that certain gun lobbies have succeeded in hampering the tracing of stolen guns via the Tiahrt Amendment. One would think that using information, and building a data base that tracks gun trafficking would be welcomed by all law abiding citizens?

Here is what Senator Charles E. Schumer has to say about it (http://www.schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=260090&).

Tiahrt Amendment Facts: History and Effect (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml)

A coalition of US Mayors (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/about/members.shtml)is trying to get Congress to repeal that ammendment.

Based off of the discriminatory requirements set by those who have protection.
Based on the necessary requirements for those that want protection from a poliferation of illegal guns on the streets?

That is certainly debatable. For example, almost $8 Million worth of firearms were stolen in Florida alone last year. What is with that? That is a lot of guns that are going to end up in the hands of criminals.

non-sequiter. That has nothing to do w/ the laws except to blame the victims of crime.

What is also mind boggling is the fact that certain gun lobbies have succeeded in hampering the tracing of stolen guns via the Tiahrt Amendment. One would think that using information, and building a data base that tracks gun trafficking would be welcomed by all law abiding citizens?

What is being 'hampered"? The BATFE has the data as well as the police agencies for any investigation. They also can share the data between eachother freely. BTW, MAIG is funded by the Joyce Foundation, who only funds anti-gun groups who admit to misleading the public to push their agenda. Not exactly an objective group.

The BATFE and FOP both support keeping the Tiahrt amendment. So is MAIG supporting or opposing police? Are they part of the "Gun Lobby"?

Based on the necessary requirements for those that want protection from a poliferation of illegal guns on the streets?

Necessary for whom? Who's going to protect them? The police? Are they required to?

Define arsenal.
Define "Assault weapon".

http://caosblog.com/images/gun_control_works.gif
Proposition 1: Hitler wanted gun control.
Corollary: Hitler did not want people to have guns.
Proposition 2: Hitler was a vegetarian.
Corollary: Hitler did not want to eat meat.

CONCLUSION: Hitler supported gun control because guns are in fact made out of kielbasa.

non-sequiter. That has nothing to do w/ the laws except to blame the victims of crime.
Your standard answer/copout. How is it possible for $8 Million of firearms to be stolen from the residents/gun dealers of Florida in just 1 year? Seems to be a lot of reckless activity here?

What is being 'hampered"? The BATFE has the data as well as the police agencies for any investigation. They also can share the data between eachother freely.
If nothing was being hampered, there would be no complaints (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml)?

The so-called "Tiahrt Amendment" is an appropriations rider that restricts cities' access to and use of ATF trace data.

These amendments have become increasingly restrictive since Fiscal Year 2003.

The current (FY 2006) Tiahrt Amendment does four things:

Prevents ATF from publishing reports that use trace data to analyze the flow of crime guns nationally.

Limits local governments' access to ATF trace data.

Prevents law enforcement from accessing trace data outside its geographic jurisdiction.

Prevents trace data from being used as evidence in any state license revocation, civil lawsuit, or other administrative proceeding (unless filed by ATF).

BTW, MAIG is funded by the Joyce Foundation, who only funds anti-gun groups who admit to misleading the public to push their agenda. Not exactly an objective group.
Despite any affiliation you accuse them of, the tracking of illegal guns is a good cause?

The BATFE and FOP both support keeping the Tiahrt amendment.
Source?

So is MAIG supporting or opposing police?
Anything that keeps illegal guns off the street is a bonus for the police?

Are they part of the "Gun Lobby"?
I would say not.

Necessary for whom? Who's going to protect them? The police? Are they required to?
Yes, the police are paid to "serve and protect".

Define arsenal.
Mega functional guns.

Define "Assault weapon".
These should suffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons#Federal_Assault_Weapon_Ban_Characteristics).

Your standard answer/copout. How is it possible for $8 Million of firearms to be stolen from the residents/gun dealers of Florida in just 1 year? Seems to be a lot of reckless activity here?
Considering how expensive most guns are it's very easy for $8 million in guns to be stolen. All you need to do is go to your local Gander Mt. or gun shop and range to see how expensive even pistols can be. Shotguns can easily cost upwards of $300. And why are you trying to blame the victims of theft for the crimes committed by others? So what if it was their gun used in the crime, they weren't involved. Punishing the vicitms of gun theft would be like punishing victims of rape for allowing themselves to be raped.

Despite any affiliation you accuse them of, the tracking of illegal guns is a good cause?
Reliable data is more important than activist propaganda.

Mega functional guns.
Now you're just not making sense.

These should suffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons#Federal_Assault_Weapon_Ban_Characteristics).
How did any of those affect the operation of the weapon? Would the bullet still come out of the weapon the same as if it didn't have any of those cosmetic characteristics?

CanuckHeaven, I'm curious to see what you'd consider reckless behavior by a firearms dealer. Can I get your take on this story?

http://www.wfsb.com/news/14595159/detail.html

BTW, this is the same place I bought my Rock River Arms LAR-15 complete lower receiver from.

How did any of those affect the operation of the weapon? Would the bullet still come out of the weapon the same as if it didn't have any of those cosmetic characteristics?

Silly goose, everyone knows that scary looking weapons shoot more deadly bullets then nice looking ones.

How did any of those affect the operation of the weapon? Would the bullet still come out of the weapon the same as if it didn't have any of those cosmetic characteristics?

I still can't believe that people would think that there's a difference between this: http://pun.org/pix/mini-14.jpg

And this: http://images1.comstock.com/Imagewarehouse/BX/SITECS/NLWMCompingVersions/51751-52000/bxp51806.jpg

Both weapons fire the exact same caliber cartridge, both have high capacity mags available (30, 40, and 100 round mags), and yet, one is considered more dangerous than the other one, simply because of its looks.

Your standard answer/copout.

To your standard answer/copout.

How is it possible for $8 Million of firearms to be stolen from the residents/gun dealers of Florida in just 1 year? Seems to be a lot of reckless activity here?

Yep, lots of criminals out there. Glad you recognize that.


If nothing was being hampered, there would be no complaints (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/tiahrt.shtml)?

Oh, please. That's a nice little cutnpaste from a political group. Tell me what's being "hampered". The only thing it does is it prevent fishing expeditions by groups like MAIG so they can pursue lawsuits which the data is not for. Poor babies. You know this. It's been linked numerous times before. Do I need to link to it again?


Despite any affiliation you accuse them of, the tracking of illegal guns is a good cause?

Non-sequiter. Are you defending blatant misrepresentations to pursue a political goal? The BATFE, the ones that have national jurisdiction, can already track illegal firearms as well as the various agencies when they have one to track.


Source?

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/MAIGResponse.html


Anything that keeps illegal guns off the street is a bonus for the police?

Talk about non-answers/copout. W/ the BATFE, DOJ, and FOP supporting the amendment, are MAIG then supporting or opposing the police?


I would say not.

Then your previous statement about the "gun lobby" was false. Oh, and BTW, the amendment has already passed again this year.


Yes, the police are paid to "serve and protect".

Then you're wrong. The police have no obligation to protect people. Like I said, thank the trial lawyers.


Mega functional guns.[quote]

So a person should be discouraged from owning a million firearms. I would accept that as a "reasonable restriction".


[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven;13287143]These should suffice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons#Federal_Assault_Weapon_Ban_Characteristics).

Then none of the firearms used recently would be classified as "Assault weapons".

CanuckHeaven, I'm curious to see what you'd consider reckless behavior by a firearms dealer. Can I get your take on this story?

http://www.wfsb.com/news/14595159/detail.html

BTW, this is the same place I bought my Rock River Arms LAR-15 complete lower receiver from.
Brazen burglars flood streets with stolen guns (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/12/a11a_gunjourney_0612.html)

Guns are plentiful on Palm Beach County's streets. In 2005 alone, authorities destroyed more than 1,500 firearms police had seized in the county. The year before, they did away with nearly 1,800 guns.

Some thieves have learned that gun stores provide an attractive target. Because the businesses are not required to secure their firearms, they are often vulnerable to anyone who breaks in.......

After the break-in, a sheriff's detective asked Stephens why the weapons were not secured in a safe. Stephens told him that he was not required to do so.
Richard Weinblatt Stolen Guns Trend (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/richard-weinblatt-stolen-guns-trend-interview-52107/2069251902)

States with high crime see more guns stolen (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-guns-usat_x.htm)

WASHINGTON — Guns are more likely to be stolen in states with high crime rates, large numbers of gun owners and where laws are lacking on safe storage of firearms, according to a study released Wednesday.

NOTE:

"The (National Rifle Association) has advocated for 131 years the significance of safe storage," says Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA.

Probably another goth :sniper:

I'm sure this is the US's fault as well.

1 dead, 7 injured in shooting at sports club in Japan
By Carl Freire, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



TOKYO - A gunman opened fire Friday at a sports club in southwestern Japan, killing one employee and wounding seven other people before escaping.

Police say a 26-year-old club employee was shot dead at the Renaissance sports club in the city of Sasebo on the southwestern island of Kyushu.

Seven other people, including two girls ages nine and 10, have been admitted to hospital.

No report is immediately available on their conditions.

The attack comes amid an apparent turf war between underworld groups on Kyushu.

Last month, a reputed organized crime leader was shot to death and his driver fatally stabbed in Fukuoka, just weeks after the brazen fatal shooting of a hospital patient who was mistaken for gang member.

Honda said police were searching for the gunman and would likely explore the possibility of an organized crime connection.

Kyodo News agency quoted local police as saying the gunman pushed his way into the club shortly after 7 p.m. and immediately began spraying bullets from his gun. He apparently holed up briefly in the sports club before making a getaway, public broadcaster NHK said.

While shootings are still relatively rare in Japan, authorities are concerned about a recent rise in crimes involving guns.

Last month, parliament approved new legislation that stiffens the penalties for gun crimes, particularly those perpetrated by members of organized crime groups.

Due to the country's strict controls on handguns, most such shootings in Japan are related to gang violence.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/12/14/4724670-ap.html

I'm sure this is the US's fault as well.

Due to the country's strict controls on handguns, most such shootings in Japan are related to gang violence.
[deleted]
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/12/14/4724670-ap.html
Well, Sasebo is a port city for the U.S. Navy...

And despite strict controls and regulation of weapons, shootings still happen. Who'd of thought it could be so?

Well, Sasebo is a port city for the U.S. Navy...

And despite strict controls and regulation of weapons, shootings still happen. Who'd of thought it could be so?

Then you have the police increasing potential body counts by advising people to become easy targets:

"Alvin Police Chief Mike Merkel said there are three things shoppers need to know if they are trapped in a chaotic shooting situation inside a mall.

First, stand still."

Because obviously a moving target is easier to hit than a stationary one.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/14704550/detail.html

Then you have the police increasing potential body counts by advising people to become easy targets:

"Alvin Police Chief Mike Merkel said there are three things shoppers need to know if they are trapped in a chaotic shooting situation inside a mall.

First, stand still."

Because obviously a moving target is easier to hit than a stationary one.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/14704550/detail.html

I hate to read the link and find out what the other two are...
Shout loudly and wait for the police? Wrong... Make yourself small and get out of the mall with your hands up. Doesn't that require a little movement?

My thought is to put as much substance and distance as I can between me and a shooter -- that is if I'm not in a position to shoot back.

You'd think after the Luby's massacre, people would think differently.