so, in light of the sandy hook shooting

Really?? Proof??

 

To clarify,what do YOU consider a 'mass shooting'?

 

Like I said before, you are a big girl, you can look it up. When I have time, I will post the same things I have already posted multiple times but at this point it seems that gun control advocates seem to push it aside and blame the gun still, even after completly logical stats show otherwise.

 

Same criteria as the FBI - more than four people dead not including the shooter
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/what-is-a-mass-shooting

But I am happy with a lower number

 

Ahh,I see your problem...accepting 'mother jones' as an authority

You don't take the NRA's view on anything,why would you accept an equally biased view from the other side?

 

never claimed that

Never claimed that but the OP is about mass shootings - was there a spike in mass shootings after the gun ban/restrictions?

 

actually, if i were you, i would stick with the higher number. because if you use a number of say 0, and make a diligent search of the Lexus, Nexis, and police databases, with search terms to return results for for mass killings and potential mass killings. you start to find a lot of "shooting incidents" in which, a far worse "mass killing" was planned, or implied, by the amount of weapons and or ammo, and or the actions of the perpetrator. but was stopped, by the presence of an armed citizen. before the FBI definition of mass killing took place.

so, i would keep your number hi, and be careful about what search terms you use, as you may in fact, have to suppress a mass of information that disproves your theorys.

----------------------------------------------------------

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots
at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant;
as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four
times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed
carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two.

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then
begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their
guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the
“trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter
to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive.
Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school,
student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45
pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total
dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a
restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead:
One.

this is just a few incidents, and is not meant to be representative of a completed listing of instences where armed citizens prevented, or lowered the potential death toll any classification of homiside. (note, these numbers, do not include the perpetrator if he died as result of his criminal actions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so, the idea that guns in the hand of law abiding citizens have no effect against crime? refuted.

ok bowerbird in light of the incidents i posted above,i would ask that you answer a simple question.

if several teachers, in the sandy hook school had been allowed access to safely, and reasonably secured arms, and had had rudimentary training in the effective, and safe use of those arms. is it likely that fewer teachers, and children would have been killed in that mass shooting?

 

i will agree with this. and I hope i have been effective keeping my passions away from my postings. if i have not, anyone is free to point that out, and will receive an apology.

a neutral, and rational framework is important, so i agree.

however, this proposal is not a proper framework for this argument, as this framework s inconsistent with a reasoned examination of this issue.

when one, or ones loved ones are ill, or injured, one takes the afflicted person to a doctor, who does his best to treat the ailment. when an epidemic is imminent in america, the federal agency called the CDC, and the doctors in the CDC are empowered to take what measures are necessary to halt the effects of the epidemic.

these are as issue of public health, because the issues deal with the agency of disease, accident. and environmental hazards. criminal violence is just one environmental hazard among many., and it is one that the field of medicine, hospitals, the CDC are not, and should not be legally empowered to treat.

when an act of violence takes place. such as a homicide, or a mass shooting, the injured are taken to doctors. but the indecent itself is a police issue, not a medical issue. the remedy for the issue is a legal one, not a medical one. we do not treat criminals in hospitals, or mental health facilities, as a punitive measure. until such a time as the court determines that a mental facility is appropriate for the treatment of a criminal declared innocent by reason of mental incapacity.

crime is not an illness, in some cases it is the result of a criminal with a mental illness, but that is part of the discovery of a police investigation, not a doctors diagnosis.

in america. an individuel who has been "bound to the law" for being suspected of a crime, is given the right to the "due process of law". and that individuel "bound to the law" for a crime.

one potential result of this is, he can be declared to be Innocent by reason of insanity only by the due process of law, and only in that case, is the subject entered into the public health system, to be treated by the proper experts.

if you are attached to the medical field, you will know the answer to this, in the medical field, who dose a mandatory reporter report to, if he should find evidence of a crime, such as spousal, or child abuse.?

i disagree with this assertion on your part, the rule of law, the constitution, and the bill of rights. is central to the debate, had we not had a second amendment, there would be no debate, because a ban of guns would very likely have been put in place in america.

bowerbirds answer. to my starting question, and my premise that arms in the hands of citizens prevent criminality. is to propose the elimination the second amendment. and in this the use of police power to confiscate guns is implied, in that there is no other means by which the totality of Americas citizenry would or could be disarmed.

as such, she must defend that proposal against those of us who know we are as american citizens, protected under the whole of the Constitution,

as such, the rights argument is a relevant framework, because we are talking abut an american problem, and america is a republic form of government, under the authority of the constitution, and the bill of rights, that guarantees the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the second amendment.

what does not belong in this debate are endless digressions on the remedies put in place under various countries governed by democracies, parliaments, communist, socialist, monarchy's, or any other systems of government that do not exist in any form in the united states.

 

first, thank you for tacking up the challenging, and most times heartbreaking work in the field of medicine, my prayers are with you.

being as you are in the field of medicine in some way. i think you will understand this argument.

for me, practically, the right for citizens to be armed is a trade off.

like when i had to have surgery to remove a quadrant of my lung,i was in danger of dying form the surgery. i had a long painful recovery, and now i notice the Asama i could previously ignore in most circumstances.

however, it was more likely that i would die from the antibiotic resistant infection that took up residence in the cystic fibroid in my lung.

what really put me on the road toward the fact that i needed to take control of my own destiny, and had to take steps to defend my loved ones from crime?

View attachment 18180


this is my front door, this was done in a burglary committed by a drug addicted individuel known to me. who is still at large. I have suspicions that it the burglary included my next door neighbor, who is know to the police as a drug dealer and is suspected of being a thief and fence. my wife is disabled, my children are 5 and 9 years old, and i work at night. do these men need firearms to kill my family,
no,
can my family defend themselves with there bare hands. against grown men who can do this to a solid bolted door,
no
'can a firearm save there lives in this situation.
yes

you may say that "its not likely that the perpetrator would harm my family in this situation unless they resist?"

in this, i am asked to trust the generosity of drug addicted violent men, bent on theft, and possibly tempted by the thrill of a bit of mayhem and rape.
i do not.

 

this was not my intended topic, when i posted start up for this tread. therefore, i will explain my intent., so we are on the same page as to what the topic is, thus, hopefully, avoid a decent into meaningless side issues.

the mass shooting at sandy hook is evidence of a problem, that of mass shootings in our schools in america. (not necessarily, mass shootings in general)

because for every solution, there is a specific problem that may make a specific solution necessary.

so, simply put,

the topic is a discussion of the best solution to limit is some way if possible, the injuries, and lives that are lost in mass shootings.

-------------------

i also noted that i think this is a much more rational debate, then the pointless limitations on gun types, magazines, and bayonets lugs. being debated by the political whining club in Americas halls of government at this time. that opinion is my unsupported criticism of one of the solutions being proposed. and is to be taken as such.

 

OK, a challenge to bowerbird

you say the solution to this problem is for the government of america to institute an australian style legal restriction on the ownership of firearms in the united states.

and it is quiet easily said, is it not?

so, how would one implement the institution of a mirror of Australia's gun law In the united states?

------------------------
on another note, i could not let this pass, unanswered, as i am getting tired of being called some sort of barbarian, simply because i am american, and express what that means,

bowerbird, i had an uncle who was blown up in the gun turret of a destroyer, by a Japanese bomb, he spent 3 weeks in a coma, he was the only survivor of the #1 turret crew. the destroyer he was attached to,at the time of the attack, was leaving the area after deployed a company of australian commandos to a Philippine island. some recognition in your writings. of the friendship that has, and still does exists between our too country's would be appreciated.

this is nothing more than a misdirected and spurious ad homonym attack, directed at all Americans. as no one supporting the second amendment in this debate has stood on the prior right to injure anyone. truth is, in america one does have the right to defend themselves, and or others, should they have reason to fear there life, or the life of others, up to the killing of the one reasonably perceived to be the aggressor. in america jurisprudence. self defense, and defense of others, is legally, an affirmative defense against charges of assault, or homicide.

however, if i injure, or kill others through willful negligence, or willful act, no matter the device used to inflict that harm. makes me accountable to tort, and or criminal law. and. i stand in support of the authority given to government to keep the peace in this manner.

however, in american jurisprudence, no law abiding owner of any property, is responsible for the criminal misuse of that property at the hands of another.

consequently, i will accept your apology for this spurious attack against all of my fellow Americans. should you be impelled by a sense of contrition.

 

Looks like the Sandy Hook shooter just used ordinary hand guns, NOT an "assualt rifle" like was initially reported:

"They say now that there were actually 4 hand guns recovered inside the school - not just 2 as we were initially told. 4 handguns, apparently only hand guns that were taken into the school. We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunmen here, also had an assault style, AR-15 style rifle that he had taken to the school that was in the car he drove there, his mother's car, but we've been told by several officials that he left that in the car."
- Pete Williams on NBC news, December 12

http://www.today.com/video/today/50208495#50208495

 

Yep! And that best way is to stop them from happening in the first place yes? If you had the level of mass shootings that Europe has you would have saved thousands of people

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but if you want the world to get a different opinion then lower your mass shooting rate

 

THE WHAT IF GAME
Rachel Maddow did a segment updating Lanza’s actions at Sandy Hook. He
gained entry by shooting out the glass in the locked entry doors which
alerted several teachers who came around the corner to confront him. Lanza
killed them both. Rachel went on to say the whole incident lasted just over
5 mins. She then said 152 rounds were fired, 151 from the AR-15 AND 1
self inflicted from a pistol .Rachel then said he used 30 round magazines
so he had to reload 4 times ,if he had been restricted to 10 round magazines he
would have had to reload 14 times. She pointed out that being the case something
could have happened in that reloading process that could have slowed him
down allowing more people to escape. Rachel went on to point out that if the
assault rifle ban had not been lifted Lanza’s mother would not have been able
to purchase the AR-15 used in the attack. NOW, WHAT IF, Lanza had been met
initially by a well- trained armed security officer, Lanza might have been the only
casualty at the school and his weapons and magazine sizes would have been
irrelevant or if it had been well known that the school had armed security , he
might have not shown up in the first place. You can play this WHAT IF game forever,
but banning weapons and large capacity magazines is not the answer. Lanza would
have just used something else , INCREASED SECURITY is the only answer. PERIOD!

 

Why do you think they would?

Is EVERYONE a pontential killer to you?

 

Why the USA is different from Australia: Our history, our founding, our independence, our economy, our gdp, Our population density. Our overall population, our lack of a single culture. Our extremely diverse ethnic groups. Our gang problem.

The Ausie government literally stole property from its people and its a shame you let it happen. Your overall crime statistics didnt go down in fact rape and sexual assault went up.

You Ausies didnt need guns anyway you have enough deadly animals.

Worse then Piers Morgan you are. You are not of the United States so you should not have a say. But its even easier then ever to become a citizen if you want to participate in a true republic.

 

We trust our banks with armed security.

We trust our Airports with armed secruity.

Our Football stadiums

Our postoffices

I think our kids deserve the same.

 

I disagree, leave the job to police or armed and trained security guards, there are plenty of trained military looking foir jobs why not train and use them. Several officers on champus during the day should do the job.

 

6 out of how many thousands?

 

No,it's NOT...we have more guns than ever and it's going DOWN

 

A lie?....<eyeroll>

 

You tell me,you seem to have all the wrong answers

 

FTFY. There are millions of CCW holders in the United States.

 

No this is the INTERNET - you know discussions across the world? Not American only

We have as much right as Americans to voice an opinion

- - - Updated - - -

No this is the INTERNET - you know discussions across the world? Not American only

We have as much right as Americans to voice an opinion

 

Yes you would need several but that now comes to - how do you afford that?

I keep coming back to the one easily proven statistic that shows up with gun control - it may not reduce overall death rates and murder rates (debatable with current research) but it unequivocally reduces mass shooting rates