skypuppy

Though it likely prevented their use in the Columbine Shooting. They did try to use IEDs, but they are signifcantly harder to make and therefor never exploded. And you keep going on about these "assault weapons", but that term means nothing without definition. I agree that the ban was silly in the state it was in, with very ill defined terms and almost identical guns being allowed due to "image differences". I agree that a ban along those lines does not work. two reasons why banning high capacity magazines will not work. 1 the virginia tech shooter had two guns, one with a 10-round capacity and one with a 15-round capacity, but managed to shoot more people than any other incident. less than 50% of handguns even come standard with less than 10 round magazines. 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzrahUUTi8&feature=youtu.be If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Beats the public health care available in the US. I would like to see a private tier added to the Ontario public health system. A hybrid system, that offers a private option to those who can afford it. I have no issue with continuing to fund a public health system through tax payer dollars. I see it as a basic right of people to be afforded health care. actuallly I agree with you -- there should be a private/public blend. there already is private for dental, optical and drugs... Unfortunately whenever it's mentioned the hue and cry starts -- cost-cutting in the ontario public health system was a big part of how my mother died. a public/private blend seems to work in the uk and many european countries. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

according to the department of justice 2004 figures, knives accounted for about twice as many fatalities as shotguns and rifles together. handguns were about 5 times as many fatalities as knives. Not exact, but from memory it came to about handguns 75% knives 14 or 15% shotguns 5% rifles 3 % other If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

public healtthcare in canada, or in ontario at least, is nothing to write home about. pretty much the right to wait in line. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Legalize drugs? I think prescription drugs are a big part of this problem, so find it interesting you would indicate legalization of drugs as an option to reduce these mass shootings. I don't think reality is a bitch at all. The rest of the western world seems to have figured it out. The US had a shooting in a school, a mall and a movie theatre all in one week alone. Most other western civilized countries don't even have that in a year, or a decade. So, there is indeed no 100% cure for this. But many other countries have opted to try and reduce these incidents from happening. Most relatively succesful. What have you (in a general sense) done since Columbine, the various University shootings, Ft. Hood, Aurora? What are you going to do now, after Newtown? Probably nothing meaningful. On the issue of costs, how incredibly sick is it that you spend trillions on warfare around the globe, but now you are worried about costs to prevent mass shootings in your own country. No wonder your reality is a bitch, your priorities are as fucked up as they get. actually this is not just an american problem... And let’s not point fingers at Americans too quickly when it’s time to talk about shootings in schools or universities. Only one city in North America has had three of them in the last 25 years. And it’s not in “cowboyland” Texas, but right here in Montreal with its shootings at the Polytechnique institute in 1989, Concordia University in 1992 and Dawson College in 2006. And then we had the shooting outside Pauline Marois; victory party after the quebec election this year -- so let's not get too uppity about things... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

We, the west created many of those oppressive dictatorships. I doubt we are seen as the great model of society. So, guns don't protect free speech? I thought you were claiming the opposite? Actually I think I saw data that under qadafi Libyan citizens weren't allowed to own guns. A good example of a dictator allowed to remain in power for a long time specifically by enacting strict gun control laws. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You seem to be getting a little agitated. Fact remains that very few crimes are perpetrated with fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are hard and expensive to acquire. I think there is a correlation. I also think that correlation will hold for other weapons. I think that will reduce the number and the severity of mass shootings. I guess that makes me of a certain kind. the hopeful, delusional kind. The glock and sig he carried would have been just as capable of killing...in fact I still haven't seen any breakdown on the use of the 3 weapons. Even with 10 rd magazine limits, he would have been just as able to do what he did. In an environment where kids are trapped in rooms and have no means to fight back, the concealed handgun is more practical than an assault rifle anyway. Lighter, smaller, allows you to carry more bullets, and you're not seen as a threat till the last moment. Agitation comes from hearing the same bullshit over and over. BTW, automatic weapons concern me less - random spraying is not effective and the prior mentioned weight issues are there. The most carnage will result from selecting each shot. Rapid rate of fire will not. my understanding was all the murders were carried out with the rifle, one of the handguns was used for the suicide... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

1984 and 3 dead. I'll take that over last week and 28 dead. These mass shootings simply do not occur as frequently in Canada as they do in the US. I believe that guns being far less accessible here contributes to that. In defense of lortie's low body count, that probably has more to do with his inability to tell time than anything else. The legislature was to open at 9, and lortie sat in his car listening to a radio program that usually ends at 9. For some reason the program ended 20 minutes early that day, and lortie assumed that it was 9 o'clock, took his guns and entered the building. In reality, it wasn't yet open, and there were very few people present at the time... Luck was with them. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

good point - if he was purposely taken out by another jumper, then absolutely you are right - it was his fault for being a target. not the attacker If he had a shotgun he could blow away the guys risers right before they collide, avoiding the impact... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

not so much a gun but any sort of weapon. I was an assistant manager in a department chain for some time. Several times we followed shop lifters out of the store to be able to point them out to police or to identify their vehicles - sometimes with security staff, sometimes without. Once we had a knife pulled on us. Some of these people were scary. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Exactly. But, they are significantly harder and significantly more expensive to get your hands on. They are also used significantly less in crimes and murders. You think that is just coincedence? Great, let's make it difficult for crazy, irresponsible people with little money to get guns. Perhaps we could impose an income requirement, then people with little means wouldn't be able to afford them. I'm sure that would go over real well in the poorest neighborhoods where they need protection more than people in more well-to-do areas. Who was the rich guy with a tank that killed his personal trainer and holed up in his house? Some chemical magnate, can't think of his name. Not everyone can afford a tank... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Sounds like bans and restrictions are pretty effective then. Denis Lortie in the quebec legislature? 1984? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

They also said his mother was a teacher at the school. The mother of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza told a divorce mediator in 2009 that she didn't like to leave him alone and that she would care for him as long as he needed it. When Lanza's parents divorced in 2009, the settlement left his mother with a comfortable income and the comfort of knowing that the then-17-year-old boy would have his education paid for and his medical insurance covered. If there was bitterness and anger between Nancy and Peter Lanza, it is not described in court papers. And there was no mention of any lingering mental health or medical issues for Adam Lanza, nothing that could even hint at the horror he would unleash three years later. In working through the terms of their divorce, the couple spent considerable time talking about how to provide for Adam Lanza's well-being, said Paula Levy, a mediator who worked with the couple. During their meetings, the couple mentioned that Adam Lanza had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, an autism-like disorder, Levy said. But the Lanzas were in complete agreement on how to address Adam's needs and said little about the details of his condition, Levy said. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I do have experience with some of the various bands of autistic spectrum disorders. I'll leave it to others to decide if and which had any bearing on the incident. I also don't believe that having aspergers amond other syndromes means one will not be involved in violent episodes.... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I am too. name something. Because being emotional has nothing to do with the issue right? I mean why should I be emotional when my child is shot to death and it destroys the lives of an extended family and costs society hundreds of thousands of dollars each in societal cost. Sure, emotion should never enter into it. We all should be robots. Governments are broke right? Everyone wants smaller govt and cuts in spending. We have seen local police affected by budget cuts all the way down to the local level here in FL. You want more prosecutions and more 'following the law'? Then get ready for bigger govt, more police, more prisons, more spending. Only partly relevant. Society is clearly demonstrating that we are fed up and want change, the stats may not matter anymore BECAUSE emotion does matter eventually. and we are not actually changing anything so people want something to change. We ignore the real problem all the time. We fought a trillion dollar war in Iraq that had no purpose and now we are floundering in another one in Afghanistan. The 'kid' was likely a law abiding citizen exercising gun rights until he shot his Mom. Australia's latest experiment seems to contradict that. And as I said, up to that point, he was a law abiding citizen. If they did not have a house full of guns, he might have just killed his Mom with a knife, but I doubt that he would have gotten into a school or gotten very far with just a knife, or a baseball bat, or a chain saw. We will CHANGE the laws and likely the Constitution. You will participate or likely lose many of the rights you hold so dear. I'm in a battle to save Skydive City because of security fence that WILL be built. It's a fact. The rationale is not there at all. They are going to build a fence. It makes no sense. They are going to do it anyway. And they are going to change your laws. You can participate and pretend that you case, or you can sit back and watch it come down around you. We choose to participate. all good points, but society is fed up. I don't know that society is fed up. The stats I saw showed 47 % vs 44 %. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

According to the department of justice, in 2004 knives were about 3 times more likely to be used to kill someone than a rifle or a shotgun -- and about twice as likely to kill someone than than rifles AND shotguns. handguns were on the other hand, about 5 times more likely to be used to kill someone than knives. So it seems there is no reason to be trying to ban these so-called 'assault rifles'. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Those reports have been debunked, more likely some sort of severe bi-polar disorder. Dr. Sanjay Gupta did a story on it the other night and all experts agree this was not the behavior you would expect to see in an autistic person. I'm still hearing he had asperger's, part of the autistic spectrum disorder. From what I've seen these disorders can occur along with other disorders or emotional problems, and can result in violent behavior in some situations. I guess we'll know more when the inquest is up. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Obviously in this case they did, since the perp was shot by a sheriff's deputy. who was off-duty, and therefore a citizen.... Fixed it for you. Personally I consider 2 people injured and shots fired in a theater to be less satisfactory than no one hurt and no shots fired. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

'If it will save one children, it's worth it' is the most intellectually deficient argument out there. We already can see from the rest of the world that bans don't stop these statistically rare events from occurring. But it does enable those people to be very 'successful.' IMO, there is more to be gained by limited the potential carnage. There were 3 other points I raised in my post as well... Anyway, I was very precise in my wording. I called it a moralstance, not an intellectual one. The intellectual stance is to realise that the 'ban all guns' ship has long since sailed for the US and that alternative methods of stopping crazies going on shooting sprees needs to be sought - personally that's morally repugnant, but I can get behind it because it's the right solution. I've not seen any sort of compromise that limits guns from the pro-gun camp... Quite the opposite! Do people really need an arsenal at home? What if families were limited to 1 or 2 guns? Ignore the 'how' for now... If we want something enough we find a way to make it happen. If there can never be any compromise and the right to have pretty much free access to guns will always have priority in someone's mind, then I tend to agree with Kallend. They have to then assume some of the culpability when guns find their way into situations like this. limit guns? different tools for different purposes. small caliber handgun for target shooting, different caliber handgun for defence or carrying in the outdoors. Shotgun serves one purpose. Different rifles for different prey. Perhaps sentimental value to do with past service or with guns handed down from parents, etc. Why should someone have to CHOOSE which sport he will buy the gun for when there's no reason not to buy one for each discipline or task he wants -- sort of like having multiple skydiving rigs for different disciplines... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Obviously in this case they did, since the perp was shot by an armed citizen. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

hmmm. seems to me you're assuming a much bigger majority than it was. typical liberal arrogance to suggest they leave the country because you happened to win the election. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Ever see the movie Deliverance? I don't like to think that could happen to me just for going canoing somewhere. Shit happens. How you react to it determines whether you get out or not. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Earlier in this thread (about 5,000 pages ago) someone (who I'm not going to bother looking up) said something much like this. Let's try a little thought experiment.* Suppose your daughter (since this hypothetical anyway I'll assume you have a daughter) calls you up and tells you there is this guy who she doesn't know who is following her. When she speeds up, he speeds up. She changes direction, he changes direction. Would you not be at all alarmed? Would your response to her really be "It's a free country, he can walk/run wherever he wants to."? Would you really have zero impulse to get in your car, go to your daughter, and ask this guy what the hell he is doing following your daughter around? Lets make it a bit more interesting. Lets say she tells you that the guy has been following her for a week or so. She's noticed that he's always there when she gets off work, follows her as she goes shopping or walks to her car. He's always somewhere close by when she goes for lunch. He's across the street, watching, when she comes out of her house in the morning. But he doesn't speak to her or anything, just follows. All the time. Would you be alarmed? He's "just following", after all. Free country and all that. No harm in following, right? Only a fool would feel threatened if a total stranger started following them, right? So what? What else would you expect him to say? Neither statement is true if GZ caught up to or cornered TM. Further, suppose you noticed someone following you in the manner I described above. Suppose you decide to approach them and ask why they are following you. Does that now make you the aggressor? Do you not have any right to ask why someone is following you? Don *For the literalists who are somehow unable to understand examples, analogies, or metaphors, I am NOT saying that GZ stalked TM for days and days. I am simply challenging the idea that "following" is a completely innocent activity that should never be taken as threatening or confrontational in itself. That is all. ** I started this reply, had to go to the lab for a while, can back and finished it, and then saw wolfriverjoe had suggested a similar "experiment". Great minds think alike/simple never differ? Take your pick. doesn't matter if you think following is threatening -- it is not illegal (unless, as you attempted to infer, totally erroneously, it is actually stalking). Confronting someone, assaulting someone, IS illegal. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This is what gets me, the poster starts with the above. Seems reasonable......... The follows with........ The area had been robbed - a lot. GZ does follow someone, thats a fact and get's out of the car. Thats a fact. That seems to be all we know. The TM group with say anything GZ says is a self serving lie. It goes to trial what happens if there just isn't any more evideance? You put GZ away because nobody should ever use a gun to defend them selfs?? Did you mean this to be a reply to me? It was probably directed at me, those quotes are my words. So... I don't automatically dismiss GZ's statements as "self-serving lies." But I don't accept them as unvarnished truth either. If you think about it, he would make a statement like he did no matter what actually happened. And I'm certainly not saying that nobody should use a gun for self defense. Nor should they ignore suspicious behavior. But I was taught that use of lethal force for self defense requires that the situation not be initiated by the person claiming self defense. And to never, ever, ever chase anyone. And GZ broke both of those basic rules. He put himself into the situation. Deliberately. A couple of instructors and a lawyer have told me that here in Wisconsin, what GZ did, no matter who started the final fight, would probably have resulted in 2nd degree murder charges. let's try it again. you said gz 'chased' tm. I've never heard gz say he 'chased' tm. he was following him. There is a difference. and again, there is no law against following someone. There may be a law about 'confronting' and 'threatening' someone -- and supposedly tm did confront and threaten gz. And we know from his records that tm was prone to violence, and drugs. So this behavior would not be out of character for him. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think I have been clear that I do not know know the exact sequence of events that transpired to bring Martin and Zimmerman into physical contact. ________________________________________ actually in post 2661 you say clearly that zimmerman admits approaching and challenging Martin. I have never heard Zimmerman admit any such thing. I think he said he was headed back to his truck and Martin came up behind him and challenged him. __________________________________________________ Then you say It bothers me that the opportunity for any "justice" in this case has been squandered, likely in the first hours after the killing when the opportunity to look for evidence to verify (or otherwise) Zimmerman's story was passed by. Every single thing about this case pisses me off. ________________________________________ But the fact that such opportunity was squandered doesn't mean that it was Zimmerman's fault. Even if things happened exactly as he said, (and in which case, under the law as I understand it he is innocent), are you wanting to hold him guilty even if he is innocent just because the police didn't investigate it enuf for you? As far as I'm concerned the police acted exactly as they should - they did investigate, and found that the facts supported zimmerman's self-defence claim, and didn't charge him. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone