Jump to content

Mass Killings - You Get What You Want in Society


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

Actually what would be wrong with fences around our schools. They work to protect goods and places of buisiness, factories etc......why not kids. 

 

The problem is that most of the shooters are guys who go to that school and would be let right in.  Heath High School has a lot of fences and automatic door locks, didn't stop anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

To accept your proposition that a termination of pregnancy be counted as a "death" or treated equally would require that one assume that it's availability is not protected under the Constitution. That is clearly not the case under current law. It requires a logical fiction. I don't see abortion as being related to mass shootings, but I could be wrong.

 

 

Whoa, there!

 

You are defending the former practice because the law protects the right to engage in it.  Yet, when taking the side of gun opponents, you are arguing that it should be against the law to have guns.  Wouldn't this position on guns, as you say, "require a logical fiction?"

I am nit dedending, nor advocating, anything. His premise was (paraphrasing) abortion is killing and it desensitizes society to the point that we have devalued all human life, including kids in school. We should therefore report these deaths. That is a moral judgement, not a logical or legal progression.

His argument actually supports gun control. Ban abortion, and you end them, and save lives. Ban guns and eliminate mass shootings. I don't see either one as legally ir constitutionally possible.

 

sorry you have misread me...to sum up my stance: I am saying Guns can save lives n crazy people take lives and that abortions are taking lives for no good reason, and yes since you mentioned it we are numb to that issue of killing babies because its convinient for some and something to pretend is about a womans rights for politicians. Its a Human rights issue period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually what would be wrong with fences around our schools. They work to protect goods and places of buisiness, factories etc......why not kids. 

 

The problem is that most of the shooters are guys who go to that school and would be let right in.  Heath High School has a lot of fences and automatic door locks, didn't stop anything.  

 

I hear ya but doing something for security for at least faster response on site may save many in the long run and the targets would at least be more difficult to get at.But you are right its not likely we can prevent these things totally on that level, Its a social problem we got to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

Wait a second.  They have heavy restrictions and require strict licensing.  Certainly, the criminals don't have guns there...

 

 

You can add Canada to that list.  Criminals certainly have guns here, and most law-abiding citizens don't. 

 

And yet, we don't fear being shot when we're at school, at a shopping mall, on the road, and so on.  Shootings in public do occur, but they're so rare that they make the news across the country.  On Boxing Day (December 26th) 2005, two gangs had a shootout on Yonge Street, the main street of Toronto.

 

Boxing Day is a major shopping day, so the streets were crowded with shoppers.  Seven people were hit by gunfire, and one died.  She was 15 years old, and her name was Jane Creba.  A shootout with a single death might not be considered a big deal in some places, but when it happened in Canada's largest city, the judge in the case had this to say:

 

"The events of Boxing Day 2005 have become a seminal event in the history of the city of Toronto, a touchstone against which all subsequent events of gun violence in this city are measured," Justice Ian Nordheimer said Friday.

 

As you can see by the related stories on this page, that shootout was a very big deal:

 

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/t-o-man-sentenced-to-life-in-boxing-day-gunfight-1.392527

 

One suspect was arrested in England, and was to be extradited back to Canada.  I haven't followed up on that.

 

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-arrest-creba-manslaughter-suspect-in-england-1.387296

 

The Crown prosecutor likened the shootout to street racing, in which both participants would share the blame if a bystander was hurt or killed.  He put it this way:

 

The man, known only as J.S.R. because he was under 18 at the time of the shooting, showed a callous disregard for public safety by taking part in a gun battle that sent a hail of bullets through a Yonge Street shopping crowd, Crown attorney Kerry Hughes said.

"(J.S.R.) willingly engaged in a gunfight, discharging his firearm numerous times into a busy street teeming with people," Hughes told the jury.

 

"J.S.R. had to know that someone other than the northbound shooter was likely to die."

 

 

In that year, 2005, there were 78 murders in Toronto, a city of over 3 million people.  That's considered to be an unacceptably high number, of course, but compared with some US cities, it might be considered relatively low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't want to own a gun that is your right.

I am a Law Abiding Citizen and if I want one or two or more that is up to me.

I don't tell you how to live your life--grant me the same from you.

 

post-60620-0-03740000-1444084529_thumb.j

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Mom said he had mental problems. The Mom exposed the murderer to firearms.

 

The Mom should be arrested and also sued by the victim's families in civil court. 

 

Keith

Really? Wouldn't that infringe on her right to bear arms?

 

 

It has nothing to do with her right to bare/bear arms. She was negligent in allowing her son access to guns. He was able to purchase guns legally which she could have stopped by simply reporting his mental instability, which she has publicly stated she was aware of. I imagine that states gun laws would forbid his possession had his mental condition been publicly known. Again, that oversight is on her as is her knowingly allowing him to use and possess.

 

To me, this is a textbook example for future gun laws.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It has nothing to do with her right to bare/bear arms. She was negligent in allowing her son access to guns. He was able to purchase guns legally which she could have stopped by simply reporting his mental instability, which she has publicly stated she was aware of. I imagine that states gun laws would forbid his possession had his mental condition been publicly known. Again, that oversight is on her as is her knowingly allowing him to use and possess.

 

To me, this is a textbook example for future gun laws.

 

Keith

 

 

Think twice before you go reporting people to the authorities that they have mental issues.  I had a friend once, had well documented mental problems, insurance ran out, got off his meds, hit financial problems, blew off some steam by yelling and hitting stuff with a fake sword and pellet gun in his own house.  Neighbors called the cops to say he is suicidal, cop shows up and shoots him in the chest with a rifle in his own doorway.  

Edited by MetropolisLakeOutfitters
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's cops being trigger happy- another problem in our society.

What's wrong with a taser!!??

So there are 100's if not 1,000's of examples, statistics, and case studies on why guns are the problem...

Can anyone cite a reputable source where guns save lives when a mass shooting occurs? Just one?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" and most Law Abiding Citizens obey that and don't carry in a GFZ.

So that kinda makes your argument invalid. 

 

Are you anti-gun?

Edited by rebuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ That's cops being trigger happy- another problem in our society.

What's wrong with a taser!!??

So there are 100's if not 1,000's of examples, statistics, and case studies on why guns are the problem...

Can anyone cite a reputable source where guns save lives when a mass shooting occurs? Just one?

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

yup, When the cops show up and kill the SOB. That ends it. Glad they have guns
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except from : http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.

True security in our schools and other designated gun-free places may require more. Forbidding firearms alone clearly won't keep violence away—not least because of how easily bad guys can get their hands on guns. Nearly 80 percent of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally.

Indeed, America is anything but gun free. We now have more than 300 million firearms in private hands. In the last four years, nearly 100 state laws have loosened restrictions on them. To varying degrees, every state except Illinois now allows guns to be carried in public.

All of which raises an obvious question: If more guns in more places is a solution to the bloodshed, then why did we just witness the worst year for mass shootings in recent history?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except from : http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings

The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime.

With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong.

Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008.

Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended.

Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms?

Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack.

No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer.

True security in our schools and other designated gun-free places may require more. Forbidding firearms alone clearly won't keep violence away—not least because of how easily bad guys can get their hands on guns. Nearly 80 percent of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally.

Indeed, America is anything but gun free. We now have more than 300 million firearms in private hands. In the last four years, nearly 100 state laws have loosened restrictions on them. To varying degrees, every state except Illinois now allows guns to be carried in public.

All of which raises an obvious question: If more guns in more places is a solution to the bloodshed, then why did we just witness the worst year for mass shootings in recent history?

how many times has an instance like this happened in a place known to be protected by armed security? They attack where we are weak.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ft. Hood shooting. Military base... Hmm I wonder if there are any trained marksmen there with access to weapons? Damn.... If only a good guy with access to a gun was there on a MILITARY BASE!!!

they shot his *** as soon as they could or more would have died. Thank god the good guys had guns
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ft. Hood shooting. Military base... Hmm I wonder if there are any trained marksmen there with access to weapons? Damn.... If only a good guy with access to a gun was there on a MILITARY BASE!!!

they shot his *** as soon as they could or more would have died. Thank god the good guys had guns
this is ludicrous- gun nuts still skip over the point. I thought good guys with guns on site would prevent the shootings?

I thought gun free zones were the problem?!

Here "good guys with guns" were there and it did NOT prevent anything. Whatever the hell that is? Show me two guys with guns... Who's the good guy?

Edited by MercedesBerater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Imagine a society in which law-abiding citizens are out-gunned by armed criminals.

Like England, Germany, and Japan? Makes ya shudder.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

Wait a second.  They have heavy restrictions and require strict licensing.  Certainly, the criminals don't have guns there...

 

 

You can add Canada to that list.  Criminals certainly have guns here, and most law-abiding citizens don't. 

 

 

 

In that year, 2005, there were 78 murders in Toronto, a city of over 3 million people.  That's considered to be an unacceptably high number, of course, but compared with some US cities, it might be considered relatively low.

 

Damn lies and statistics!

 

Maybe 'most law-abiding citizens' on the island you're living on but here in Alberta the number of law-abiding citizens with firearms massively out number 'criminals with guns'.

 

Chicago and Mexico both have laws outlawing private possession of either all firearms (Mexico) or handguns (City of Chicago). Both have murder rates by firearms that massively exceeds what occurs anywhere in Canada and everywhere in the USA.

 

 Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaipo said: “A liberal paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive health care, free food, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not, such a place does exist. It’s called a prison.”

Edited by Wolfbane
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...