Certainly a factor:Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon
"...He was taking the antidepressant Prozac and at least once was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies..."
http://tinyurl.com/48edw
Order of Kilopi
Certainly a factor:
"...He was taking the antidepressant Prozac and at least once was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies..."
http://tinyurl.com/48edw
Established Member
As with any sociopolitical group there will be those who differ with the generalized opinion. I can't tell you how glad I am that you differ with the mainstream liberal regarding firearms.Russ, I just wanted to nip this hasty generalization in the bud, just so you know. I am liberal and I, along with many other liberals I know, believe in gun ownership for the reason Argos stated. An unarmed citizenry can't fight very well against a militaristic state or tyranny, can they? I try to learn from history and never assume things can't happen over and over again...uh, because they do. :-?Russ:I could not agree more my friend. I'm not sure you are using the term LIBERAL in the same context that it is used here in the USA. Here a liberal would want to disarm the law abiding citizen.
(BTW, liberal does not = Democrat, just so you know)
I had two customers who were followed home from restaurants in their nice cars and held at gunpoint in their affluent houses. Their kids were there, too. Both said they were glad they didn't try to make a move for their licensed guns. Burglars aren't interested in killing--they want the stuff and to get out of there. The men felt that if they tried anything it would agitate the burglar into shooting them; they just let them take anything they wanted. If you are going to use a gun against someone who has less to lose, you better be sure you're a darn good shot. With kids around, do you want to risk that? Houston is full of guns, but the thing is, most people who legally own them never get to use them in these kinds of situations.
I've never owned more than a BB gun and I would never have guns around kids unless they were securely locked up. I do have a black powder pistol on my wall, but I'd be long dead before I could get that thing loaded.
As with political opinions, self defence scenarios are highly variable. I'm sure that the people in your example showed good judgement. One small change in just one variable of that same situation could change the victims response.
Regarding your own wepons, PLEASE KEEP THEM LOCKED UP. They can be deadly. Regarding you children: Teach them about firearms. It sates their curiosity, demistifies the object and (maybe) gives them a sport they can enjoy for their entire lives. To wit: At my club, there's a retired doctor, 85 years old, out there most days dusting clays 100-150 in a row.That's tall shoot'n in anybodys book.
Banned
I totally agree. In fact, someone I admire very much said a similar statement earlier in this thread. :P
Established Member
I agree that if you are going to have children around firearms they should be taught about them.I totally agree. In fact, someone I admire very much said a similar statement earlier in this thread. :P
I would think they should also been shown the effects so they learn respect for that power. Say getting a pigs head from the butchers and showing them the damage they can do.
Order of Kilopi
Indeed. Even if you aim and hit correctly (say, in the upper leg), people can die of the primary wounds, or from damaged intestines due to the impact shock.
I assume the police tries to shoot someone in some cases, and really tries to kill him in other cases. But in all cases they should consider the (large) chance of that person getting killed. If that is no option, they shouldn't shoot. Even when shooting at car tires, things can go wrong or the car can crash and kill the people inside.
All this does not relate to the debate whether the police should shoot at/kill anybody. It starts from the assumption tat they do shoot and kill.
Established Member
It is clear to me that I have failed to make myself clear in your case.If the number of UK citizens killed by Al Qaida gets to within even an order of magnitude of the number killed by sectarian violence in Northern Ireland over the last 30 years, I'm sure we'll take that under advisement. Meanwhile, you're vastly, vastly overestimating the scale of the problem. Heck, if the number of US citizens killed or seriously injured (outside of Iraq duties, which is clearly a special case) outweighs the number from legally owned firearms, I'll be surprised.ops: Your response is irrelevant to my point. I'll elect to not debate the issue any further. Thanks for bringing my shortcomings to my attention.
Order of Kilopi
You would need to possess either nerves of steel and/or past relevant experience to calmly kneecap someone. First you have to stay calm, then you have to be a good shot. IMO, the staying calm is the tough part. It's funny how many people think they would be cool and calm, only because they haven't been there.
I used to drive a wrecker and arrived at a couple scenes at the same time as the EMTs. Very intense adrenaline even being around dead and dying people. Took a while to get used to it, I was amazed at how out of sorts I was the 1st few times.
Same with skydiving. Newbies are of course nervous, but more in an excited and giddy way. They have no idea what it is going to be like to go to the door and step out. As the moment draws nearer you can just see them coming apart. I don't mean freaking out - but totally rushed - completely not themselves - feeling something that's like nothing they could have even imagined before it actually happened. All the on-the-ground pronouncements of being totally cool to it and I'm going to do this and I'm going to do that - out the window baby! They're like a deer in the headlights. Some brain-lock so bad they actually forget where they are, with the instructor/jumpmaster needing to pull the ripcord. If it happens a second time it is suggested they find a different sport.
But I digress into a fun topic. My point, and one of my concerns with the interpretations on the right to bear arms and the resultant level of gun ownership, is that:
<> Almost anybody can shoot at targets. No big deal.
<> Most can hunt game, though the annual number of hunters shooting their partners shows that even that activity courses enough adrenaline to wreck many people's good judgement. (Thought he was a deer. Yeah, blaze orange deer. Tell me these people aren't rushed out when they pull the trigger without noticing their prize buck was wearing a blaze orange coat, hat, and earmuffs).
<> Facing off with another human when one or both has a gun. Unless there has been training or plenty of previous exposure, this is a recipe for disaster. People freak. Heck, that is why many crime scene investigations are so difficult. Eyewitnesses get darn near brainwashed by the adrenaline.
Ideally, and I know, a logistical nightmare, people should have to prove capability before owning a gun. It's required for driving, being a pilot, skydiving, scuba - what's the problem with that? I get a kick out of the "I'm not registering my gun" attitude. Do these people refuse to register their cars, boats, homes, etc.? Are these the maniacs living in the deep woods, refusing to fill out census forms, pay taxes, etc.?
How about training & screening based on weapo of choice.
Hunting rifle or shotgun - some training.
Long barrel with pump or semi-automatic capability- more training.
Handgun - even more training.
Banned
Perhaps, they should only give a gun license to people who go through rigorous training. Like a drivers license, etc... :-k
Order of Kilopi
Because a driver's license does a wonderful job of keeping people from killing each other with cars, right?
Order of Kilopi
I wouldn't want to be on the road if everyone could just go on it.Because a driver's license does a wonderful job of keeping people from killing each other with cars, right?
Order of Kilopi
Except, of course, that (in most states) you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, own a car, or drive a car on private property. You only need it to drive on public roads.
So, it's not really the same thing . . .
Established Member
When I was growing up we had shotguns and rifles guns in the house. My father was very matter-of-fact about them, let me see them (unloaded), and taugh me to respect them. The mystery and lure that childhood seems to have for them quickly passed away.
They were far less of a danger than the table saw, planer, radial arm saw, drills, circular saws, hammers, etc. found in the garage that I often used.
So in my opinion, if you have kids and guns, don't hide them and act like they're an extremely forbidden item. That seems to make children want to see/play with them (the allure of the forbidden I guess). My plan is when my child gets old enough, I'll let him see and eventually handle them unloaded. Later I'll take him to the local gun club so he can fire them himself. Eventually he'll, hopefully, become like I did and see them for what they are, tools not toys. They will remain locked up however.
I'd be hard pressed to go for them should we get robbed. Material items can be replace.
Unfortunately, people hyped up on meth are increasingly a problem here. It's been shown to increase aggression and about once every couple months there's a home invasion by a person on meth, and they often brutally kill (among other things) the residents (and often without having a gun). (Sorry no links, usually it's on the morning news and they're bad at not putting stories on their websites.)
So that makes me occasionally think about reconsidering where I stand. In that situation, I have a family to lose. The compromise I'm considering is to keep loaded clips in the ammunition case to ready the gun faster.
Order of Kilopi
OK. Actually, my point is, driver's training is not rigorous. Just about anyone can get a license. In fact, it is easier to get a driver's license than a gun license (in California). So, in most cases (as SeanF says), not a great comparison.
Banned
I'm guessing a drivers license cuts down on the number of needless car accidents (and deaths). Don't you? :wink:Because a driver's license does a wonderful job of keeping people from killing each other with cars, right?
Banned
Then compare it to something of equal merit. You get the jest, though, I hope.
Order of Kilopi
Sure, but wouldn't it be more effective to just not let people have automobiles of any kind? Imagine the reduction in automobile deaths then!I'm guessing a drivers license cuts down on the number of needless car accidents (and deaths). Don't you? :wink:Because a driver's license does a wonderful job of keeping people from killing each other with cars, right?
Banned
Wouldn't it make more sense to just not sell and let people drive automobiles unless they had a drivers license?Sure, but wouldn't it be more effective to just not let people have automobiles of any kind? Imagine the reduction in automobile deaths then!I'm guessing a drivers license cuts down on the number of needless car accidents (and deaths). Don't you? :wink:Because a driver's license does a wonderful job of keeping people from killing each other with cars, right?
Order of Kilopi
Well, then it would be just like gun control now (sorta). I thought people were talking about taking guns away (to prevent murder). I just figured we may as well not stop with guns.
Banned
I think you know what I was suggesting. Oh well, I'm gonna take a bath and go to bed. I'll let you boys continue to play with yourselves. :wink:
Established Member
Farmer said:
I suspect that you are not familiar with the laws surrounding the implementation of the long gun registry here. Registering your firearms under these laws give the police the right to enter and search your house and property without a warrant or any due process. It also gives them the right to sieze your firearms without due process.I get a kick out of the "I'm not registering my gun" attitude. Do these people refuse to register their cars, boats, homes, etc.?
Also most firearms owners are really upset that the government has, by passing a law, made what was legal property illegal property. In other words the default is to suddenly become a criminal through taking no action at all.
Established Member
As with "mid" above, I have totally failed to get my point across.First off we were not begging. People got very rich selling those guns to us.
Secondly it's not the muslim world that has decided to murder it's small religous groups that have formed armed groups. Plus the causes that they kill for are generaly political dressed up as religion.
Secondly: The point is, it doesn't matter who is attacking you, for what reason or the size of the organization. The Nazis started out as a bunch of thugs in barroom brawls. Your description in "Secondly" above is exactly what the Nazis did, if you'll recall. The only difference is they called their religion 'National Socialism" and Hitler was the god. :roll:
:roll: "They were "successful" and I use the quotes because everyone died," :roll: This is EXACTLYwhat I was talking about when I said not everyone thinks as you do, above. From the point of view of the terrorists, the mission was a perfect success. Everyone was supposed to die! :roll:They were "successful" and I use the quotes because everyone died, because the hijackers we're armed with box cutters. So if it is legal to carry fire arms on board a plane the Hijackers would be able to as well.
I understand that onboard some planes they are air marshells. They get trained to take down hijackers. Have you been trained? It's not just the ability to shoot straight.
Again, the wepons used is not the point...
I can tell I'm going to get banned if I continue with this discussion. I appologize for having a different point of view than yours. I appologize for having studied history to the degree that I have my point of view.
I appologize if I have offended anyone. That was not my intention. I'm gone to talk about Bad Astronomy and such. I'm here for the fun of it.
(edit to address the concerns of Nicolas)
Nicolas was kind enough to send me the above PM. I hope he does not mind me reproducing it here. Now that he has pointed out my questionable phrasiology I would like to say that it was not my intention to be arrogant. I have spent a lot of time and effort studying war in general and WW-II specifically and wanted to convey that fact.
Nicolas has made me parinoid. I just read my response to his PM and it looks the equal to the words in his warning me about. How does one lay valid claim to knowledge without sounding arrogant?
It would seem with this thread I can only lose. Thanks again Nicolas. I'm off to softer topics. (Squawk, squawk, squawk, chicken on the run)
Established Member
....
Ok i'am going to take a back seat here too. This topic has gone off topic anyway.
I did react to my nation being discribed as begging, maybe I should have just let it pass.
I also react to generalisms about social groups. To do so is to deny the richness of humanity.
Anyway I hope this thread will get back to the sad subject in hand and can come up with some suggestions on preventing school shootings happening again.
Established Member
Here, in Ontario, it takes 2 years to get your full license. First you go for your written test, then you take your first drivers test after 1 year. Finally, you take your second drivers test at the end of the second year for your full license. The laws have been made like this because of the number of accidents resulting in death. When this new licensing system came out, it was the toughest of its kind in North America. I'm not sure about now though, as other provinces have adopted similar systems.
So in the case here, it takes longer to obtain your full drivers license, than it does to legally posess a firearm. And in the case of posessing a firearm, the laws are still very strict.
Order of Kilopi
What do the numbers look like with respect to automobile deaths/firearm deaths?
Established Member
According to Statistics Canada, the mortality rate in motor vehicle accidents is 13 per 100,000 in the year of 1993. That number had dropped to 11 through the years of 1994-1996, and to 10 in the year of 1997. This however, is a federal census, and does not reflect only the province of Ontario. Regardless, the mortality rate dropped the same year that graduated licensing was introduced to Ontario in the year of 1994, which is also the most populated province in Canada.
Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/health30a.htm
Source: http://www.smartmotorist.com/gra/gra.htmIn Ontario, Canada, where GDL took effect in 1994, preliminary results show the crash rate for drivers age 16-19 declined 27 percent in 1995 compared to 1993. (Interim report, Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Transportation, 1998)
On the issue of homicides involving firearms, the number is 0.7 deaths per 100,000 averaged between the years of 1985-1995 inclusively. Unfortunetly, I've been unable to find statistics that make a better relation between firearms and car accidents. Either way though, the numbers are pretty self evident. Deaths involving car accidents are higher than those involving homicides with firearms. At the same time though, there's more people who drive on a daily basis, than there is that use firearms. I suppose if we really wanted to get down to it, we could find statistics on firearms usage vs transporation usage on a daily basis, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Source: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/re.../default_e.asp
Edit to add: I suppose that since we're talking about mortality rates by car accidents, it would only be fair to include overall mortality rates by firearms, which would turn out to be much higher as well.
Established Member
Yes, Pete, I think you mean a lot of numbskulls don't see it like that.Yes, but a lot of people don't see it like that. Unfortunately IMO!
If some American people (not on this forum) were to appreciate the fact that TEN TIMES the number of Americans were killed by guns in 2001 than were killed on 911, then they might appreciate it too.
Good point, someone, about the USA killing kids. =D>
Established Member
I think there's something to be said about anti-depressants in this case, as with Columbine. If people don't take their meds properly, the meds wreak havoc on how one feels. If you suddenly stop cold turkey, you can plummet into a severe clinical depression. I read a very persuasive article in the Houston Chronicle about how little we know about all these newfangled meds. I know I was bad about doing things I should when a teenager; some teenagers are very bad about just wearing their retainers after all the $$ spent on straightening their teeth.
I knew a customer, who was 30, and he moved to Wellington, NZ and loved it--he sent me emails at work saying, "You've got to move here." Maybe because he was so initially excited about his new surroundings, he stopped taking his meds. Ended up in a hospital there, eventually was brought home, then he jumped off the Medical Center parking garage and died. We heard from his father that he had been messing around with his meds--on, off, etc.
So, if this kid was on Prozac and he was already mentally unstable, along with being a hormonal, confused teenager and didn't take his meds properly, he probably just went off the rational ledge. However, if he had tried hitting people with a bat, knife, or something similar, it would have been much easier to tackle him. My point is, yes, I am for responsible gun ownership, but his father, knowing the kid was unstable, shouldn't have allowed him easy access to a gun. The idea that a kid like that can get it anywhere may be true, but as with Columbine, ammunition shouldn't be so easy to obtain (Kmart?). There are unethical gun shops as there are unethical x,y,z businesses and the penalties should be severe for unethical practices.
All in all, this is a tragedy and things happen. Even though the TV scrolls a list of child gun incidents and it LOOKS bad, it really isn't. The media just saturates us with this stuff (the school stuff). Percentage-wise these incidents are rare.
I don't know, there isn't a simple solution. Preventive medicine is the best cure, but there's no preventing someone who becomes psychologically imbalanced. That is just part of humanity.
-----------------------------------------------------
Off the topic, but related:
Amadeus, I love this short and sweet quote of yours:
I also react to generalisms about social groups. To do so is to deny the richness of humanity.
I can't tell you how sick I am of generalizations on my community board, the kind I responded to Russ about, and to which he very diplomatically replied.
Being a Word Witch, "generalisms" is not a word, but I got what you meant. Other words that can be used are:
generalizations
compartmentalizations
stereotypes
lumping
stereotpye: a standardized mental picture held in common by members of a group and representing an oversimplified opinion, affective attitude, or uncritical judgment (as of a person, a race, an issue, or an event)
compartmentalize: to separate into compartments or categories in a manner tending to preclude interrelationships
That was an aside, but I feel it is a scourge on political discussions with our board and it drives me to act like the proverbial bull in a china shop that I can be. (No, I don't believe in astrology, but I am exactly like a Taurus and my favorite color for objects is red. I have red walls and all).
I owe, I owe, so off to work I go....
Order of Kilopi
That can't be right. The CDC lists all assault deaths for 2001 at around 20,000. For comparison's sake, that is around 1% of the death toll for the entire year. Accidents (all non-intentional deaths), on the other hand, account for 5 times the number of deaths as assaults (remember, that is all inclusive; guns, knives, baseball bats...).Yes, Pete, I think you mean a lot of numbskulls don't see it like that.Yes, but a lot of people don't see it like that. Unfortunately IMO!
If some American people (not on this forum) were to appreciate the fact that TEN TIMES the number of Americans were killed by guns in 2001 than were killed on 911, then they might appreciate it too.
Good point, someone, about the USA killing kids. =D>
I do not consider myself a numbskull.
Established Member
I'm sorry for the rude and inconsiderate post. Better that it's removed.That can't be right. The CDC lists all assault deaths for 2001 at around 20,000. For comparison's sake, that is around 1% of the death toll for the entire year. Accidents (all non-intentional deaths), on the other hand, account for 5 times the number of deaths as assaults (remember, that is all inclusive; guns, knives, baseball bats...).Yes, Pete, I think you mean a lot of numbskulls don't see it like that.Yes, but a lot of people don't see it like that. Unfortunately IMO!
If some American people (not on this forum) were to appreciate the fact that TEN TIMES the number of Americans were killed by guns in 2001 than were killed on 911, then they might appreciate it too.
Good point, someone, about the USA killing kids. =D>
I do not consider myself a numbskull.
Established Member
Brady, I don't think Richard was implying that 9/11 was insignificant, simply that if you look at the number of deaths in an unemotional way, we Americans ought to be horrified by the number of deaths per year in the US caused by car accidents and guns. 9/11 scares us because it's an unknown--some terrorists, attacking OUR country. The fear part of that is scarier than the thought that I am more likely to die in a car accident (especially in Houston!) We are complacent in that way. As many people die in car accidents per year as we lost in Vietnam. It's just something to consider.Brady Yoon: Are you are trying to say that having gun-related deaths renders 9/11 insignificant? I'm sure if England was the victim of a terrorist attack, you would care a lot more. I very much doubt you would say 5,000 deaths is insignificant.
Some guy spammed our board with anti-gun posts back in February. I don't know who is he is and he wouldn't engage in discussion or provide links, so I had to block his ISP# for a while. There are more posts, but he says, "Guns don't kill people, people do. But guns and bullets make it easier." This is one of his posts. I don't want to cause any 2nd amendment discussions (too political), but I'm quoting his statistics. All I know about him is that he belongs to some paratrooper club or organization.
There are 200 million privately owned guns in the US, including 65 million handguns. Firearms are now the second biggest cause of injury-related death in the country, killing 28,663 people in 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. For African-American teenagers aged 15 to 19, gun-related homicide is the leading cause of death, and for all American teenagers of similar age gun-related homicide and suicide come second only to motor vehicle accidents. "If it's the number one cause of death for portions of the population, how can it not be a compelling public health problem?" asks Stephen Teret of Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland.
Gun-related homicide
Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.
Another one: Abortions are another subject,lets talk about weapons that are deliberately designed to kill,and indeed kill
more Americans per annum that any foreign army ever did.Its nice to see that San Francisco is banning them all from next Febuary, in defiance of that murderous second amendment, thats real guts for you.Canute
D
Logged
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote