Another mass shooting in the U.S

danger mouse · 17-12-2012 09:15PM

Im so sick of seeing stories like this. I really don't have any faith in humanity anymore. I'm lost for words. i know this happened a couple of days ago but I just couldn't bring myself to post in this thread until now. I'm so over whelmed by all these horror stories i keep seeing on the internet. I just cant understand this tragedy and why it happened, the world is so cruel.

Bruthal · 17-12-2012 09:36PM

danger mouse wrote: »

Im so sick of seeing stories like this. I really don't have any faith in humanity anymore. I'm lost for words. i know this happened a couple of days ago but I just couldn't bring myself to post in this thread until now. I'm so over whelmed by all these horror stories i keep seeing on the internet. I just cant understand this tragedy and why it happened, the world is so cruel.

Imagine the earth with people suddenly gone. It would seem a far nicer place

Piliger · 17-12-2012 09:44PM

Sparks wrote: »

And that post is a pretty good example of why there's never any actual debate on this in the US.

My point exactly.

Piliger · 17-12-2012 09:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, would they not be part of this nefarious "gun lobby" everyone is so exercised by?

In other news America fails to tackle the 100,000 people who die every year simply from medical error, Ireland fails to address the fact that every seven hours, someone in Ireland dies from an alcohol-related illness, and my head explodes from the lack of perspective being demonstrated in this thread.

Well your head is your own problem but America does more than any other country on the Planet to minimise medical error and In Ireland we do everything physically possible to reduce alcohol related illnesses. I really don't know where you make this stuff up from.

Piliger · 17-12-2012 09:50PM

MadsL wrote: »

I don't know. Are posters here blaming gun-owners for the events in CT? You know, a few of them seem to be. Some even start talking about the blood of angels on their hands, and other non-emotive, non-confrontational language like that. :rolleyes: I bet they drink. Monsters.

Well it is the gun owners fault yes. And that blood is on their hands. There is no doubt about it.

Piliger · 17-12-2012 09:51PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Unbelievable...

http://news.sky.com/story/1026461/us-school-shooting-sparks-rise-in-gun-sales

Parents of children at the Sandy Hook school have visited a gun store asking to buy weapons for protection in the wake of the shooting.

According to .............. ? The gun shop owners ? ......... duh........... :rolleyes:

MadsL · 17-12-2012 11:33PM

Piliger wrote: »

Well your head is your own problem but America does more than any other country on the Planet to minimise medical error

Sure they do, you keep believing that. That's why the US comes last in comparative studies.

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

and In Ireland we do everything physically possible to reduce alcohol related illnesses. I really don't know where you make this stuff up from.

Sure we do. 3rd highest rate of consumption in the world. Second highest rate of teenage drunkeness in Europe. In Ireland 37% of fatal crashes alcohol was a factor. 62% of single vehicle accidents had alcohol as a factor. source

Ireland is by no means doing everything physically possible. You are dreaming if you think so.

Piliger wrote: »

Well it is the gun owners fault yes. And that blood is on their hands. There is no doubt about it.

As plausible as me blaming the fact that you consume alcohol and also visit the hospital for road deaths and medical error.

If you genuinely think like that stop drinking immediately, as you have blood on your hands. Think of the innocents you are hurting by visiting the pub.

Bruthal · 17-12-2012 11:46PM

MadsL wrote: »

As plausible as me blaming the fact that you consume alcohol and also visit the hospital for road deaths and medical error.

If you genuinely think like that stop drinking immediately, as you have blood on your hands. Think of the innocents you are hurting by visiting the pub.

By gun owner, im certain he means the person with the gun in his hand shooting people. Not the gun owner as in everyone that owns a gun.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 11:57PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

By gun owner, im certain he means the person with the gun in his hand shooting people. Not the gun owner as in everyone that owns a gun.

I assure you he doesn't. He has made that clear in earlier posts.

Piliger wrote: »

The only trollers are the Gun Lobby trollers an flamers. This outrageous slaughter using weapons only needed in a war zone is the result of the Gun Lobby's glorification of the Gun. They don't give a damn about the victims. 1,000 toddlers can be killed, 10,000 students can be slaughtered but they will never accept that they are directly responsibly. They put the guns in the hands of these evil people. They make money from gun sales. They have the blood of each of these 20 angels on their hands.

That is the truth that they carry in their conscience.

pgmcpq · 18-12-2012 01:39AM

MadsL wrote: »

Not suprised, I'm just pointing out the apparent contradiction that whilst prohibition or draconian control and limits on numbers and types of guns owned is mentioned over and over as a solution for gun massacres, prohibition or rationing is almost never proposed as a solution to alcohol related deaths and drunk driving deaths.

No contradiction at all. It is very simple. It is quite difficult to kill someone with a pint, even two. It is relatively easy to kill someone with a gun. I think if you understand this becomes relatively clear. Even more so if you avoid confusing the issue - which is the free availability of lethal weapons.

pgmcpq · 18-12-2012 01:55AM

MadsL wrote: »

The argument being made is at the moment under most states laws it is a felony to bring a legally held weapon into a school. This means that even if the teacher (extreme example) is a former special ops highly trained veteran or retired police officer, they may not bring their own weapon which they may carry everywhere else in public under permit.

I think people in this thread forget that some 12% of Americans are military veterans, trained in firearm use and then question why they see guns as a way of protecting themselves and others.

The argument about relaxing the restriction on guns being carried in schools isn't "OMG, arm teachers now", it is questioning why it is OK for trained, fingerprinted, permit carrying gunowners to have them in the street outside a school, but not OK for them to have them inside the school in the possible event that they may be able to stop an active shooter.

I know a one church deacon here who brings his gun to church as part of (as he sees it) his calling to protect that congregation.

FYP. Seems unlikely tbh.

Brilliant - so with the rate of PTSD among our veterans your suggestion is that allowing them freely walk around with guns is a solution ....seriously ?

So, to avoid violence is schools we bring loaded weapons into the school ? And in school districts that right now are laying off teachers and closing programs we are going to pay "former special ops highly trained veteran or retired police officer"(s) to protect the school. [/QUOTE]

By the way - I'd ask currently serving police officers about this plan. I'd be interested to hear what your local PBA has to say.

MadsL wrote: »

I know a one church deacon here who brings his gun to church as part of (as he sees it) his calling to protect that congregation.

Now that's just funny.

Manic Moran · 18-12-2012 02:32AM

pgmcpq wrote: »

Brilliant - so with the rate of PTSD among our veterans your suggestion is that allowing them freely walk around with guns is a solution ....seriously ?

Hasn't proven to be a particular problem so far. The State with the best kept figures appears to be Florida. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/reports.html
1.6 million veterans out of a State population of 19 million. They have one million Floridians currently licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Of over 2.3 million licenses issued since they started in 1987, exactly 168 have been revoked for some form of an offence involving a firearm (not necessarily one in which it was discharged). That figure compares very favourably to Ireland's firearm conviction rate / population over the last 15 years, I think.

So, to avoid violence is schools we bring loaded weapons into the school ?

No, there is litte chance of ever avoiding violence by that. But in terms of limiting the damage done once the shooting starts, it's a better chance than we currently have.

And in school districts that right now are laying off teachers and closing programs we are going to pay "former special ops highly trained veteran or retired police officer"(s) to protect the school.

On this I'd agree with you. We don't have the money for dedicated security personnel. As a result, the only personnel assets schools (or any other location) can rely on are those currently in place. To include teachers who happen to already be licensed by the government to be armed in public.

By the way - I'd ask currently serving police officers about this plan. I'd be interested to hear what your local PBA has to say.

You may be surprised. In times of diminishing police forces (they're suffering budget cutbacks too), it is common to hear police chiefs officially recommend that citizens arm themselves, as their own ability to respond to issues is reduced. From my neck of the woods:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/02/bankrupt-california-city-attorney-warns-of-public-safety-cuts-lock-your-doors-and-load-your-guns/
San Bernardino is so bankrupt that the city’s attorney is advising residents to “lock your doors and load your guns,” in the face of budgetary cuts that have downsized the police force by 80 officers.

Or particularly on point:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/

St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says it is time to talk about arming civilian school personnel following Friday’s massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

There are a lot of cops who think that an armed citizenry is a good thing.

Now that's just funny.

It wasn't funny during the colorado church shootings a few years back. Stopped by a member of the New Life Church congregation who brought her gun to the service.

There is also some precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting. Assistant Principal confronted the shooter with a .45 he happened to have in the car.

NTM

wonderfullife · 18-12-2012 02:52AM

I foolishly attempted to debate this on yahoo message boards and kept being told the following:

"Our forefathers fought for our freedom with guns, so as free people we too have the right to have guns"

America is obsessed with grandiose words like freedom and liberty, and somehow feels the right to own a gun is a necessity to prove you are "free".

We don't have "forefathers" but the likes of Pearse, Collins, Wolfe Tone etc all at some point used guns to attempt to give Ireland "freedom". Yet we don't feel the need to carry on their tradition.

Those who used guns and spilled blood for freedom did this so we don't have to.

What freedoms do your guns in America give you that we don't have here? We can walk the streets, we can vote, drink, marry, work; we have freedom of expression, we can follow a religion, we can even defend ourselves.

So tell me what freedoms gun ownership give you that we don't have? I could understand it better if, for example, owning a gun in this country was a requirement to vote or marry or whatever. We have as much freedom and liberty as America, arguably more so because for most of us we will go through our entire lives without even seeing a real gun, let alone having to defend against it or the innate fear of it being used against us.

Overheal · 18-12-2012 02:54AM

pgmcpq wrote: »

No contradiction at all. It is very simple. It is quite difficult to kill someone with a pint, even two. It is relatively easy to kill someone with a gun. I think if you understand this becomes relatively clear. Even more so if you avoid confusing the issue - which is the free availability of lethal weapons.

Well, a Pint is $5, and doesn't require any licensing at all, and an average handgun is $300-700, so I don't see your point exactly.

What freedoms do your guns in America give you that we don't have here? We can walk the streets, we can vote, drink, marry, work; we have freedom of expression, we can follow a religion, we can even defend ourselves.

That must be new; the last time I checked Ireland doesn't have a castle doctrine. Do you now actually have the legal right to defend your home and property or do you still have "a responsibility" to flee? And on the religion bit how is that thing going with the Catholic church and census numbers and baptisms? I am also pretty sure gays have no rights to marry and your ability to divorce was a hot topic not that long ago. I'm digressing a little bit, but since you included those topics.

Conmaicne Mara · 18-12-2012 03:07AM

pgmcpq wrote: »

which is the free availability of lethal weapons.

Damn right, I bought a sharp paring knife in Tesco last week, when you you be picketing them so I can join in?

Overheal · 18-12-2012 03:09AM

It seems you do now have a Castle Doctrine, well done! However, I would like to point out how the law was first tested:

Because someone got shot.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Burglar-shooting-to-test-new-self-defense-law-on-intruders-147560195.html

To top it off, a previous shooting incident was responsible for introducing the law (see article).

So pgmcpq, guns gave you your right to elf defense as well.

wonderfullife · 18-12-2012 03:11AM

Overheal wrote: »

Well, a Pint is $5, and doesn't require any licensing at all, and an average handgun is $300-700, so I don't see your point exactly.That must be new; the last time I checked Ireland doesn't have a castle doctrine. Do you now actually have the legal right to defend your home and property or do you still have "a responsibility" to flee? And on the religion bit how is that thing going with the Catholic church and census numbers and baptisms? I am also pretty sure gays have no rights to marry and your ability to divorce was a hot topic not that long ago. I'm digressing a little bit, but since you included those topics.

ummm January 2012 does that count as new?

"Minister for Justice has this afternoon announced that the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 has commenced. The Act allows for a person to use "reasonable force" when defending their home from an intruder. The Act also means that an intruder (/burglar) cannot sue the dweller for using reasonable force." - 12/1/12

Also let's get something very clear. As your post is frankly uneducated. We NEVER had "a responsibility" to flee our homes under attack. If someone attacked your home and you injured/killed the attacker, yes you were liable to be charged with a criminal offence (pre-jan 2012). However, legally speaking this was always an employable defence - i.e. if it reached court, self-defence is a valid defence. There was never an onus to "flee". You could always defend yourself and your property. Almost always the courts would take this into account. Moreover , there was never any appetite from the DPP to bring criminal charges against people for injuring an intruder.

The change to the law in civil cases is important though; not being sued for self-defence.

Overheal · 18-12-2012 03:13AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

ummm January 2012 does that count as new?

"Minister for Justice has this afternoon announced that the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 has commenced. The Act allows for a person to use "reasonable force" when defending their home from an intruder. The Act also means that an intruder (/burglar) cannot sue the dweller for using reasonable force." - 12/1/12

Also let's get something very clear. As your post is frankly uneducated. We NEVER had "a responsibility" to flee our homes under attack. If someone attacked your home and you injured/killed the attacker, yes you were liable to be charged with a criminal offence (pre-jan 2012). However, legally speaking this was always an employable defence - i.e. if it reached court, self-defence is a valid defence. There was never an onus to "flee". You could always defend yourself and your property. Almost always the courts would take this into account. Moreover , there was never any appetite from the DPP to bring criminal charges against people for injuring an intruder.

The change to the law in civil cases is important though; not being sued for self-defence.

See my recent post. Your new defense law was begot by the defensive use of guns.

I'd also point out the fact that you haven't had that right until January of this year is laudable..

Sparks · 18-12-2012 03:25AM

Overheal wrote: »

That must be new; the last time I checked Ireland doesn't have a castle doctrine.

How old are you? We've had castle doctrine for as long as we've had actual castles. It's just been in case law rather than statute law (until 2009 when it became statute law)

edit: 2012, not 2009; 2009 was when we started hearing murmurs about the bill that became the 2012 act...

Manic Moran · 18-12-2012 03:28AM

Overheal wrote: »

See my recent post. Your new defense law was begot by the defensive use of guns.

I'd also point out the fact that you haven't had that right until January of this year is laudable..

This is incorrect. Ireland has always had a castle doctrine or equivalent. The recent legislation merely was a bit of grandstanding and codeified into law what was very succintly put by the courts in DPP vs Barnes. http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument

So tell me what freedoms gun ownership give you that we don't have? I could understand it better if, for example, owning a gun in this country was a requirement to vote or marry or whatever. We have as much freedom and liberty as America, arguably more so because for most of us we will go through our entire lives without even seeing a real gun, let alone having to defend against it or the innate fear of it being used against us.

I defer to Article 1, Section 1 of the Nebraska State Constitution, which puts it rather well.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/articles.php?article=I-1

Overheal · 18-12-2012 03:39AM

Then I am indeed mistaken; I feel like we've talked about this before though. Still, that codification was begot with guns.

Sparks · 18-12-2012 03:51AM

Overheal wrote: »

Still, that codification was begot with guns.

Given the codifier, I'd argue that politics had a far larger role there, to be blunt.

wonderfullife · 18-12-2012 04:03AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is incorrect. Ireland has always had a castle doctrine or equivalent. The recent legislation merely was a bit of grandstanding and codeified into law what was very succintly put by the courts in DPP vs Barnes. http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument

I defer to Article 1, Section 1 of the Nebraska State Constitution, which puts it rather well.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/articles.php?article=I-1

"All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So your answer is the above? Pathetic. So you consider the right to hunt as innate to being free? Because other than hunting we all have the right to life, liberty etc in this country.

I guess this sums up the American psyche though. The "right" to a pursuit of happiness. Total grandiose idealistic contradictory nonsense. What if murdering, raping and robbing people makes you happy? Shooting up with heroin in public or strolling the streets naked in the city? Oh no, wait, can't do that as there's laws against those things.

Bottom line you are a free country, you can do all the things we can do and your obsession with "freedom" and correlating it to owning a gun is a nonsense.

Piliger · 18-12-2012 04:27AM

MadsL wrote: »

Sure they do, you keep believing that. That's why the US comes last in comparative studies.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

You appear to be unable to differentiate between isolated statistics and reality. The reality is that they have some of the best healthcare in the world and a rabid legal system that punishes mistakes severely. In contrast, most of the rest of the world has almost no adequate health services and/or pitifully reliable reporting systems. Your statistics mean nothing. Your enslavement to Wikipedia is worthless without reality and context.

Sure we do. 3rd highest rate of consumption in the world. Second highest rate of teenage drunkeness in Europe. In Ireland 37% of fatal crashes alcohol was a factor. 62% of single vehicle accidents had alcohol as a factor. source

Ireland is by no means doing everything physically possible. You are dreaming if you think so.

Yet again you intentionally conflate two completely irrelevant issues. Irish people live, thankfully, in a free country and chose to drink a lot. Unless you, comically, support prohibition then you clearly have no concept of that it means when you accuse the Gov of not doing more.

You whole argument is misguided and empty.

Piliger · 18-12-2012 04:28AM

robbie7730 wrote: »

By gun owner, im certain he means the person with the gun in his hand shooting people. Not the gun owner as in everyone that owns a gun.

I mean everyone in the US that supports the perverted gun laws.

Piliger · 18-12-2012 04:35AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I foolishly attempted to debate this on yahoo message boards and kept being told the following:

"Our forefathers fought for our freedom with guns, so as free people we too have the right to have guns"

Irrational people say anything to try to win arguments and persuade themselves that they make sense.

America is obsessed with grandiose words like freedom and liberty, and somehow feels the right to own a gun is a necessity to prove you are "free".

They glorify violence and the Gun. They have fetishised everything to do with firearms. Their culture holds the images of gun toting killers higher than anything else.

We don't have "forefathers" but the likes of Pearse, Collins, Wolfe Tone etc all at some point used guns to attempt to give Ireland "freedom". Yet we don't feel the need to carry on their tradition.

We don't need 'forefathers' to tell us what is right. That is our enduring strength.

Those who used guns and spilled blood for freedom did this so we don't have to.

Absolutely right.

What freedoms do your guns in America give you that we don't have here? We can walk the streets, we can vote, drink, marry, work; we have freedom of expression, we can follow a religion, we can even defend ourselves.

And we can do all of those things without being shot to death by some guy who has a bad day or stops taking his meds, or who has a mental problem. This is why OUR freedom transcends ANY freedoms they have in the US.

So tell me what freedoms gun ownership give you that we don't have? I could understand it better if, for example, owning a gun in this country was a requirement to vote or marry or whatever. We have as much freedom and liberty as America, arguably more so because for most of us we will go through our entire lives without even seeing a real gun, let alone having to defend against it or the innate fear of it being used against us.

Exactly right.

Piliger · 18-12-2012 04:38AM

Overheal wrote: »

Then I am indeed mistaken; I feel like we've talked about this before though. Still, that codification was begot with guns.

yada yada yada ...... three knock downs ... you're OUT

Sparks · 18-12-2012 04:42AM

Piliger wrote: »

We don't need 'forefathers' to tell us what is right. That is our enduring strength.

Really? Hm....

Bunreacht na hEireann wrote:

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And we can do all of those things without being shot to death by some guy who has a bad day or stops taking his meds, or who has a mental problem. This is why OUR freedom transcends ANY freedoms they have in the US.

Unless you're a woman who needs an abortion.
Or a raped altar boy.

Mind you, we do have better coffee...
...but then, they have barbecue.
Hmm. Hard to decide there really...

Piliger · 18-12-2012 04:45AM

Sparks wrote: »

Really? Hm....

Unless you're a woman who needs an abortion.
Or a raped altar boy.

Mind you, we do have better coffee...
...but then, they have barbecue.
Hmm. Hard to decide there really...

Yes. We have far more freedom than anywhere in the US. A better country, a freer country, a healthier country.

Sparks · 18-12-2012 04:47AM

Piliger wrote: »

Yes. We have far more freedom than anywhere in the US. A better country, a freer country, a healthier country.

Ryan and Savita would indicate that that's not the case in all areas of life...

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments