SO MANY SHOOTING

[IBMlenovo123]

One in Binghamton NY, (14 dead including the shooter)
One is Pittsburg PA, (3 cops dead)
One in Washington, (Father killed 5 children)

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG?

[dorronto]

How do you think I feel???????????

My wife and I work in Binghamton and my son goes to school there. My wife is a teacher in the High School and was "locked down" for most of the day. I've worked in Binghamton since 1988. tell me about it.......

It's a great area with wonderful people.

A shame, a real shame. We even danced at a couple of dances at the American Civic Assoc. building..

Keep the victims in your prayers and hope this never happens again, ANYWHERE..

Ron

[GomJabbar]

Sorry to hear that hit so close to home, dorronto.

What about the incident in Pittsburgh, PA yesterday? Some guy shoots 5 cops, killing 3 of them. His beef? "Friends said he recently had been upset about losing his job and that he feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns." Looks like he makes the ideal case for banning guns!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD97BR6T00

I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. I have had rifles and shotguns in the past, but I got rid of all of them about 20 years ago. I do think that some controls need to be in place to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals (a difficult task), and certain types of guns such as automatic weapons and assault rifles should not be sold to the general public.

Generally I do not believe in owning guns for personal protection. The one you might use it against very probably is going to get you instead. You likely stand a better chance to live and tell about a confrontation if you do not brandish a weapon. Most people are shot by someone they know, not by a stranger. It's hard to defend against that.

[goofyGAguy]

Gom, you could not possibly be more wrong...


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=007

[skitty4gzus]

well i had this really awesome reply typed out but i was timed out and it went bye bye! anyways, taking God out of the country is not going to help tragedies like this go away. But, trouble like this was prophesied by God a few thousand years ago. He said sin and lawlessness would increase as we get closer to end times and we are in fact in end times. As far as gun control and what not. I own guns and will continue to purchase and enjoy shooting. I look forward to purchasing an assault rifle in the near future and acquiring my concealed and carry permit so i can carry a firearm on my person for protection.

[mattbiernat]

you take away guns from the good guys and the bad guys will be the only ones who will have it...

[GomJabbar]

Goofy, I could not be more right!

What I said was: "some controls need to be in place to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals (a difficult task)." If you have a corner bazaar (gun show, or whatever) where anyone can purchase any kind of firearm, that certainly does not make the country or state a safer place to live. The availability of highly lethal automatic weapons and assualt weapons and their related ammunition leads to a dangerous situation for law enforcement and the populace in general. Just where does one draw the line anyway? Some think there should not be a line - WRONG! Just because it "is cool" to possess one of these firearms is not sufficient reason to make them legal. It is not unusual for children (I mean teenagers) of gun owners to use their parent's guns for nefarious reasons - too often in a school.

If parents owned and used their guns responsibly and taught gun safety to their children, gun availability would not be so much of an issue. The fact is: many gun owners do not treat gun ownership with the respect it merits. I times past, guns were needed to put food on the table. Those days are mostly gone. Yes there are still some that hunt game, and I do not advocate taking their guns away or taking away their ability to make future gun purchases.

What is happening more these days is that people purchase guns for protection without proper training and gun safety in mind. They also purchase guns to "show off". Most of these people have no business owning a firearm. The protection they think they are getting is often an illusion. I'll give a telling personal anecdote here: My father's sister married a man, and they were married for about 15 years with 2 daughters in their marriage. I remember one Easter they came to our home and that man (my uncle) was showing us the new .45 he had recently bought. After about 15 years of marriage, my aunt and uncle got divorced, and a couple of years later my uncle remarried. About 3 or 4 years into his new marriage he got into a dispute with his wife and killed her right in their own home (with that same .45 I believe). His wife's 19-year old daughter was in the basement of their home when he killed her mother. He then turned the gun on himself and that was that.

Why did he buy the .45 in the first place? I'm not exactly sure, but I believe it was for a sense of security. I would have never guessed that he could have committed such an act. Since that time, I have felt that it is hard to "really know" what a person is capable of. How many of us, when the hormones are raging, would not do something regretable with a firearm - if it was handy.

What I am saying is: the reason many purchase firearms is either the result of poor judgement, or the desire to threaten, injure, or kill their fellow man. If there is a way to limit firearm access to these ones, that is a good thing. I am not saying I have all the answers here, but some gun control makes sense.

[craigmontHunter]

The problem with gun control is that criminals who get their guns illigally anyway are not going to be bothered. Look at toronto - they have basically banned any mention of guns/firearms on the street, don't allow for pro-gun events (sportsman show) to be held on city property, and have made the discharging of firearms illigal forcing the closing of the shooting range at the university of toronto, but they do not seem to realize that if a person is going to go out of their way to kill someone, they are probably not going to use a licenced and registered firearm. Their was a debait on T.V. a couple of nights ago, and one of the politicians said how police cheifs call in a say that they use the long gun resestry every day, but I would imagine only to determine that the firearm was not regestered. All the Handguns are pretty much illegal in Canada, but that is what most of the murder wepons are. The thing to do is try to remove the reason for people to have the weapons - crack down on drugs and gangs, so there is no reason to have a firearm except to hunt or for competitive shooting at a range.

I also think that the U.S. should control Assult rifles and machine guns, since they serve no useful purpose, aside from going on the murdering sprees.

In my opinion, the best way to stop the shootings is to A) ban handguns, B) limit the number of shots in repeaters (7 in canada) C) ban automatics, and D) Increase sentences for trafficking firearms.

I think (hope) that I am an unlikely candidate to take out my anger through a gun for a couple of reasons 1) I hunt, and I have seen what a bullet does to flesh, and heads, and 2) my aunt died a couple of years ago, and after seen the pain that my grandparents went through, I never want to put anyone through that. I think that the problem is that you get all the little 6 year olds that watch and play the video games, and I heard a story about a little 6-year old who told a little girl that he would come back and shoot her family dead, and when her mom asked him about it, he thought that they would just come back to life. It may not be the violence in the video games, but the respawning that makes death and firearms seem so non-permanant and serious.

[goofyGAguy]

In my opinion, the best way to stop the shootings is to A) ban handguns

Why is it so hard for people to get it through their molasses-thick skulls that wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

[dsvochak]

wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

And where is the "study" showing that result?

[GomJabbar]

Why is it so hard for people to get it through their molasses-thick skulls that wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

I am not advocating draconian gun laws, but the statement above is just so much hot air. Criminals do not really concern themselves if their intended victims have a gun or not. They always figure they have the upper hand. They figure they have the element of surprise in their favor and they are probably better skilled with weapons than their intended victims. They never intend to let their victim get a chance to pull a gun or other weapon out.

Primarily only in the case of home invasions could the home owner be on a more equal footing with the criminal. Even then, homeowners have been known to shoot other family members that surprised them.

Crime rates go up primarily because of lost jobs, the poor economy, oppression, the lucrative drug trade, gangs and other such issues. You think most people didn't have guns in the time of Al Capone and Elliot Ness? Although I have no statistics to back this up; I expect that there was a larger percentage of gun owners per capita then than now. Back then was the time of the Great Depression. Criminals and anarchists feed on such times.

Murder can be broken down into three components: desire, ability and feasibility. A society's aggregate desire to commit murder depends on social factors, but its ability and feasibility to commit murder are heightened by widespread gun availability. Indeed, most studies find a clear correlation between the murder rate and gun ownership, especially handgun ownership. Most gun owners claim they buy guns for protection, but it appears that the problem (murder) and the solution (gun deterrence) are one and the same: 70 percent of all murders are committed with guns. We should also consider a failure any "deterrence" that is correlated to the very crime it is supposed to deter. But most damagingly, the FBI deems only 1 percent of all murders to be "justifiable homicides" using a firearm. Statistics from the nation's largest crime survey also show that a gun in 19 times more likely to be used in nonfatal crime than in nonfatal self-defense. Pro-gun advocates respond by trying to refute these statistics, citing a study that shows that defensive uses of guns outnumber their criminal uses. However, the survey they cite is not credible. Even if these dubious statistics were true, one cannot praise a social pathology (i.e., gun violence) that only partially cures itself (i.e., through gun deterrence).

[speaking of the author's time in the Army]...there were classes where we had to learn what deadly force was. It boiled down to this: if deadly force was authorized, it meant we could use the minimum amount of force necessary to deal with an intruder. Let me repeat that: the minimum amount of force necessary. In other words, just because we had the capability to shoot and even kill someone didn’t mean we were authorized to do so under all circumstances.

In the current gun debates, I hear a lot of talk about the right to defend oneself and one’s property, but I am wondering just what that right might entail. While I am pretty clear in my own mind that the right to own a gun does not also convey the right to become an executioner, I am less certain that all gun owners and advocates are clear on the concept of deadly force as I have outlined it above.

[mattbiernat]

It may not be the violence in the video games, but the respawning that makes death and firearms seem so non-permanant and serious.

actually many studies have been done on video game violence, TV violence and in general influence of video games. there is no direct evidence supporting that a kid who plays video games is more likely to engage in a violent act. kids who do engage in a violent behavior are usually those who have been previously exposed to domestic violence.

[ajkula66]

One thing that should be taken into the account is that we happen to live in the society which has managed to destroy the role of the family in the traditional sense that has been known to our ancestors for 2000 years or more...and put greed on a pedestal as its core value...so why would any of this be surprising? Many people consider closed groups like Amish to be freaks, but in all honesty they might be the ones who have gotten it right, and we might be the freaks....

Marx and his followers (most notably Lenin) may have been wrong on a variety of issues, but they got the alienation aspect of the capitalism extremely well IMO.

Now, with that said, I choose to own a weapon for a variety of reasons, one of them being the fact that I'm well aware how understaffed local law enforcement is, and how long it may take for them to respond to an emergency, given the vast area that they cover. To that I add the ancient wisdom that I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

Criminals will always find ways of obtaining weapons. As will any lunatic bent on revenge against those who have "wronged" him/her. That's not a valid reason to disarm the rest of us IMO.

Should there be limits to what one is allowed to own for hunting and family protection purposes? Absolutely. No bazookas or tanks, Katjusas or similar rocket launchers.

Before society decides to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, it should get its priorities straight...some of them would include getting rid of political correctness (root of all evils IMHO), along with overly liberal judges, followed with toughening laws dealing with gun and drug trafficking, as well as child abuse and pornography. Consider the aforementioned an appetizer...

Having lived through some really tough times, I'll say that people get beastly under pressure of poverty, and that chances of such incidents will only become greater in the near future.

May I be wrong with this last assumption for the sake of all of us...

[moronoxyd]

Why is it so hard for people to get it through their molasses-thick skulls that wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

Then why does a country like Germany with much more strict gun control have a lower crime rate (murders with firewarms per capita) than the US?
(Please note that I found this link via a quite web search. I don't know how accurate it is. But it brings across the general idea.)


For a firearm to increase your safety you would have to have it on your person or in reach when there is need, you would have to be fast enough to use it before your assailant, you would need to aim better than him, ... a lot of ifs.

But:
If you have a firearm in your house, it may be used against you.

If you have a firearm in your posession, you may be tempted to use it in anger. (see GomJabbars story)

If there are a lot of firearms in circulation in a country, police and other enforcement agencies tend to act more violently out of fear. Which in return gives citicens the impression that there is need to protect themselfes against the very organisations that are meant to protect them...

[Marin85]

I believe the way individuals (both good citizens and criminal elements) and society deal with guns and gun-related matters is by far conditioned by cultural aspects or is part of the culture they belong to. And by culture I don´t mean only positive things that make us look civilized, but also the lack thereof as well as further cultural aspects regarded as "negative", because it´s actually both of them (cultural "good and evil") that shape the actual output of (the abstract notion) culture, meaning concrete actions and decisions. Let´s take Switzerland as an example, that´s the country with the highest gun density. Yet they have very low criminal rates, with also extremely low share of murders with firearms (see the link posted by moronoxyd). This is because of their military tradition that every man that has had military service of some kind posses a gun. As for U.S., the "Wild West times spirit" has always been present in one or another way in their culture:

1. Settling in North America: new but dangerous world, yet also new hope, people working hard to establish their existence, to accumulate (working) capital. Even now, U.S. is known for its hard-workers, whereas Europeans have stronger preference for their free time (instead of the income they would get if they were to work during that time).

2. Dangerous new world: the new settlers really needed to protect their homes (and their live), their capital and property, all gained by so hard work, from "strangers" and intruders, hence the strong need for guns. Kill or being killed.


As time goes by, these things don´t pass, but instead they get inherited in the culture in one or another way because of the great meaning they had in the start, because of the way a society (or part of it) has been affected by these times or events. In most cases these influences were so strong that they inevitably are given from generation to generation.

The same pattern applies to the way how individuals and society deal with alcohol (or drugs) or war or anything else that has or had significant impact on them. No rocket science, but "simple" history, and in fact this happens in a very similar way to the way we now celebrate traditions or feast days.

Just my 0.02$

Marin

[jdhurst]

<snip>
Why is it so hard for people to get it through their molasses-thick skulls that wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

That is NOT true in Canada. ... JDH

[dsvochak]

Should there be limits to what one is allowed to own for hunting and family protection purposes? Absolutely. No bazookas or tanks, Katjusas or similar rocket launchers.

In District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Scalia took 67 pages to analyze and interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Grossly, the interpretation is everything to the second comma is superfluous. If Justice Scalia’s interpretation is correct little justification exists for limiting the type of “Arms” one is allowed to own?

Sorry, George, but, assuming Scalia and the NRA are correct, there’s no legal basis to prohibit ownership of bazookas, tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs or anything else that qualifies as “Arms”. Remember, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

(I agree it appears the vast majority of people believe bazookas, tanks, etc., can be prohibited. That is, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can be infringed. It becomes a question of how much infringement is allowable.)

A quote from the article cited by goofyGAguy seems to answer the question I posed:

As they write in their paper, "It would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime, [although] there is evidence that it does so in the United States"

Instead, they maintain, with refreshing candor, that some European countries simply have low crime rates, and because of that, those countries never imposed anti-gun laws. So gun ownership is high, and crime is low--it’s just not necessarily low as a result.

[GomJabbar]

In District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Scalia took 67 pages to analyze and interpret the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Grossly, the interpretation is everything to the second comma is superfluous. If Justice Scalia’s interpretation is correct little justification exists for limiting the type of “Arms” one is allowed to own?

Sorry, George, but, assuming Scalia and the NRA are correct, there’s no legal basis to prohibit ownership of bazookas, tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs or anything else that qualifies as “Arms”. Remember, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Should there be no legal basis (in regards to the "Second Amendment") to prohibit ownership of "bazookas, tanks, rocket launchers, nuclear bombs or anything else that qualifies as “Arms”." It needs to be considered that the founding fathers could not have envisioned such "arms" when drafting the 'Constitution' and 'Bill of Rights' during the times of flintlock muskets and black powder. When such unforeseen inventions become real and possible, people cannot bury their heads in the sand and ignore them. As science and new technologies create things we never envisioned, laws may need to be enacted to deal with them. This is the only prudent thing for society to do.

[spuddog]

I own a handgun and several shot guns and rifles.

I won't try to convince anyone that they are right or wrong in their beliefs. Most of the people
that have posted believe in their viewpoint and I doubt that anyone has been swayed to change sides. Fortunately in this country we still have some measure of freedom, unfortunately this means people are free to do bad things. I fear that these freedoms will be lost in a vain attempt to prevent bad people from doing bad thing.

Scott

[skitty4gzus]

spuddog said it well. the gov't will just end up taking away guns from good people, not everyone. people who want access to a gun will get it no matter the cost. and what keeps folks with bad intentions from picking up a knife, a hammer, an axe, a crossbow, etc......... I have heard stories of folks killing others with all sorts of crude weapons, does this mean we ban all of them too? you can't blame guns for people making stupid decisions with them. People get into cars drunk and run people over and we don't take their license away from them. We always go outside the box to find answers for problems inside the box. It's like trying to put a band aid on the situation and "hoping" things will get better. Which is a perfect interlude into our next 4 years of Obama's reign.........

[GomJabbar]

I find it interesting that the Religious Right seem to be such strong advocators of the 2nd Amendment. How is that reconciled with the following?

Matthew 26:52 (King James Version)
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Revelation 13:9-10 (King James Version)
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

[craigmontHunter]

Why is it so hard for people to get it through their molasses-thick skulls that wherever Draconian gun laws are enforced, crime rates invariably go up, because criminals know their intended victims will be "easy meat" ?

That is not what I meant. What I mean, is that people need to retain the basic respect for all life, and handguns serve no useful purpose, since as long as you do nothing to annoy too many people, you are generally good. The other reason is that if no one is allowed to have easily concealable firearms, then anyone found with one without an extremely good legal reason is automatically in trouble, making finding and keeping illegal guns off the street easier.

The point about the vidio games is not that they make the kids more violent - for all I know they give them a easier way to relieve stress and reduce violence. The point is that it takes away the sacredness of life, and if you respawn in the game, then there will be some part of the subcontious that will work on the belief that death is not permanent, especially in younger children. Death is so permanent, there is a statistic, but I know that most of the people who attempt suicide and fail will never try it again, because they realized what they would throw away, bringing back the fear of death. I hunt, so I am not one of those extremests who believe that killing anything is murder, but I understand that life is sacred, so when my family gets something, we use as much as possible and bring in the hide for the Natives to use for clothing and crafts. The bones are ovbiously less useful in a suburban area, but as much as we can we will use.

[ajkula66]

craigmontHunter wrote:

since as long as you do nothing to annoy too many people, you are generally good.

I know a lot of people, myself included, who have experiences that prove the viewpoint above to be null and void.

Lowlifes will choose you as a target because you have a nice house. Or a fancy car. Or....(feel free to fill in the blanks).

To them, the lives of my family members-or yours-or anyone else's for that fact-have no value. They know that a competent criminal lawyer and a bleeding-heart judge will ensure that they get no more than a slap on the wrist, while we're smelling the underside of the roses.

I don't think so.

In fact, I know that it wouldn't be so. Because I've gone through it already once.

I'll be (feel free to insert an expletive here) if I've survived eight years of civil wars and a NATO bombing to be killed-or even threatened-on my own piece of property six thousand miles from the city I was born in.

I've heard noise one night and told my wife to grab the kids and stay put, laying low.

There are certain things that trigger fear in everyone, unless the person is downright stupid. Red light of the laser beam on your chest is one of them.

They were given the choice to lift their hands where I could see them or die.

They were also smart enough to choose the first option.

Even smarter they were to find a good criminal lawyer or two or three.

They'll be back on the streets soon enough. Way too soon. Did I mention my hate for the bleeeding-heart-liberal judges?

But I'd bet my last cent that this particular crew won't be visiting my neighbourhood again.

[neenee]

People have guns to feel safe against people who have guns.

Perhaps it's best if I do not try to understand it.

[dsigma6]

well i had this really awesome reply typed out but i was timed out and it went bye bye! anyways, taking God out of the country is not going to help tragedies like this go away. But, trouble like this was prophesied by God a few thousand years ago. He said sin and lawlessness would increase as we get closer to end times and we are in fact in end times. As far as gun control and what not. I own guns and will continue to purchase and enjoy shooting. I look forward to purchasing an assault rifle in the near future and acquiring my concealed and carry permit so i can carry a firearm on my person for protection.

God??

[jamiphar]

God??

Sure, Creator of the universe. The One who sent His Son to absolve us of our sins. Taking God out of our great country will only lead to disaster.

[dsigma6]

Sure, Creator of the universe. The One who sent His Son to absolve us of our sins. Taking God out of our great country will only lead to disaster.

I'm cognizant of the fact I'm on the TP forum and not another that I frequent...therefor I won't engage this matter, as it'll just get ugly.

[jamiphar]

I'm cognizant of the fact I'm on the TP forum and not another that I frequent...therefor I won't engage this matter, as it'll just get ugly.

I wasn't trying to start any debate or get into an argument, I just wanted to voice my opinion and maybe answer your "question".

[i-SnipeZ]

I hunt and go target shooting with my buddies up in Empire, CO. Taking away our guns would be awful. Sure we could use bow's and arrow's... but whats the fun in that, id much rather watch the prarrie dogs explode and make socks out of the rabits fur tyvm. Btw rabit is a wonderfull, lean, meat, its right up there with buffalo in my opinion.

[BillMorrow]

many good comments herein above..
lots of thoughtful and good people..

for me, though, i think of this comment made in a movie..

referring to the star as he takes a really large stainless steel revolver from the glove coompartment of his car on his way to a meeting, his co-star asks him "do you need THAT?", his reply: "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"..

which sums up my feelings pretty well..

i don't LIKE guns..
they are dangerous and are enablers..

but the world in filled with really bad people..
who have no regard for anything other than what they want..

and in my case, 71 years old and i have never delivered a punch to anyone.. ever.. at all..

if i am faced with an intruder in my home whether this intruder is armed or not and i have a handgun i will use it to encourage that intruder to leave for about .03 seconds and then i will defend my home..

period..

another thought comes to mind: "I would rather be judged by 12 good and true men than one person with criminal intent"

that horror in binghamton, NY might not have gone on for so long had someone there been armed..
someone besides the killer..

now we all know that those who want to take the right to keep and bear arms away from the american people will seize upon gun violence to make their case..

i stand on the side of liberty and will say that a well armed population is a courteous population..

and the bad guys will most all soon be either good guys or dead guys..

i might add here that i have not purchased any guns of any kind for at lease 40 years..