Newtown School Shootings

[Idaho]

A gun is a tool for killing or stopping things. I agree. A semi-auto is an effective tool for killing and stopping, often more things than a pump action or self loaded bolt action is. This is why you would need it. Limits in NY on ammunition have already been lowered to 10 rounds, 18 years ago. Now they want to ban the weapon, even though homicide rates nationwide have gone down with less gun control. At some point, the amount of things you need to kill or stop becomes a concern beyond reasonable self defense. A line has been drawn at full auto weapons, and hey - I can be persuaded to agree in some situations. If we get past the idea that the second amendment exists to protect people who want to have a fun hobby or eat gamier meat than is available in local stores, then we are getting somewhere. That argument is fallacy. A gun is not a tool for sports and there is no amendment is not in or Bill of Rights to protect cricketers or basketball players. It is there to protect the right of the people to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones from dangers - from violent criminals - but more notably from state-sized enemies within and those outside.

I'm not a hunter. I'm only a sportsman to become proficient at using my weapon. I keep and bear arms because it is my duty to myself and others in the event where I need sufficient firepower to resist tyranny on a small scale or large scale; burglary, murder, coup, invasion, riot, despotism.

You are under a good government, I am under a good government - bot have their problems. Problems can and will metastasize over time and that government can become a bad one. Or it can be supplanted by a bad one. Your rights will disappear. People fight wars to get rights, against others and against their own countrymen. If you don't have the tools to win the war, you will lose the war.

This is not meant to be a slight at you. I'm sure you are a nice bloke, and mean well. However I am really, really, REALLY glad that my neighbourhood doesn't have people like you. I sleep very well at night knowing that within a mile radius of me in this city, there are likely, at most 5-10 firearms. And that those are hidden away and very illegal.

[Papewaio]

Wouldn't you want the statistics released on what is the most lethal/highest stopping power weapons?

If I lived in fear I'd like any decent strategy gamer, game the system.

I'd figure out what is the best weapon for each location in my house. Say have a shotgun for the hallway. A pistol in a safe in the bedroom. A rifle to cover the backyard. I'd also setup secure cameras to cover blind spots, accidentally leave toys under windows. I'd make sure my fire exit drill isn't compromised by intruder protection systems and vice a versa. If anything I'd plan it so I have multiple exits and fallback points.

I'd like to know which weapon is optimized for each scenario and I'd hate to buy something that would just aggravate the attacker or let them get easy access to my self defence weapons.

Also it would allow me to assess a situation much quicker if I could size up what kind of firepower the attacker has.

If I went full on, I'd set up false cover, nightingale boards, trapdoors, spotlights, thermal cameras and have a good dog.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wouldn't you want the statistics released on what is the most lethal/highest stopping power weapons?

If I lived in fear I'd like any decent strategy gamer, game the system.

I'd figure out what is the best weapon for each location in my house. Say have a shotgun for the hallway. A pistol in a safe in the bedroom. A rifle to cover the backyard. I'd also setup secure cameras to cover blind spots, accidentally leave toys under windows. I'd make sure my fire exit drill isn't compromised by intruder protection systems and vice a versa. If anything I'd plan it so I have multiple exits and fallback points.

I'd like to know which weapon is optimized for each scenario and I'd hate to buy something that would just aggravate the attacker or let them get easy access to my self defence weapons.

Also it would allow me to assess a situation much quicker if I could size up what kind of firepower the attacker has.

If I went full on, I'd set up false cover, nightingale boards, trapdoors, spotlights, thermal cameras and have a good dog.

I do want those figures. I love figures
I also have a wife, so I'm going to have to settle for a few gun safes and cameras around the perimeter. When I have kids I'm going to seriously reconsider ever telling them about my guns until it becomes clear that they are not insane, even then I will hide or sell my collection. I told my dad not to get a shotgun when he asked as it would jeopardize the safety of mid teens still in the house.


I'd also like my neighbors not to be helpless. I've never hear of a murder with a gun or even a shooting anywhere near my town. One guy went crazy and killed his wife and son, but they lived near the train tracks. It is amazing to me that the US has so little killing with all of the guns we've got. You guys live in a fantasy work where Americans are just bathing in each others blood all day long. The gun culture here is really incredible in that it is so peaceful

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is not meant to be a slight at you. I'm sure you are a nice bloke, and mean well. However I am really, really, REALLY glad that my neighbourhood doesn't have people like you. I sleep very well at night knowing that within a mile radius of me in this city, there are likely, at most 5-10 firearms. And that those are hidden away and very illegal.

And yet, walking past Boots at 6pm on a Winter's night is still a bit nerve wracking sometimes. Last time my sister was here she said she couldn't get over how early the drunks appear here.

[Greyblades]

I'm getting the feeling that parts of america are in the position that trying to ban firearms would be a detriment, not because more guns are the best solution to the problems of safety out of all the alternatives developed, but because thier social services' capacity to respond to threats requiring force is poor enough that, as it is, a good portion of america doesn't have the capacity to provide the alternatives european countries can. Guns are litteraly the only solution available and to take that away before ensuring the presence and effectiveness of said alternatives would cause more problems than solved.

Take that with a grain of salt, I have a raging cold that makes me dizzy so I'm not sure if it is correct.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

-Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address

There is no constitutional right to revolution, that action is extra-constitutional related to a founding philosophical "right to revolution". The Bill of rights ensures rights that exist outside of the power of government (with allowances for State regulation); the second amendment protects the right of "the people" to check the power of the Federal government which has a professional military. Arguably, if the relationship as a check and balance exists, the militia and the people within in should have relatively serious firepower (not just small arms). This document protects the people's ability to rise up, but does not protect the "right" to rise up which cannot exist within a legal framework. It does, however, created a means by which the Federal Government and States can suppress treasonous militias - as it should.

You should read this article by a USAF Colonel - prior to the recent Heller case which more obviously affirmed an individual right to bear arms. I think it is fair. More importantly, I think that you will think it is fair. Extremely informative.

The author correctly understands the historical relevance of the document as it relates to a balance of power in theory. He goes on to suggest that armed civilians have no realistic chance of countering a modern military. He uses good arguments to support this theory. He then puts in references to suggest that other high ranking military men of their own day felt the same way (George Washington). He brings up good points about successful counter insurgencies and how they were effective because they were backed by other large and conventional forces, rather than through the use of small arms. He uses these points, but only minimally considers that civilian means do not end at small arms and that our technological capacities are growing. He speaks little of digital sabotage done by non-state actors (the article was written prior to fever pitch in this evolution). He was happy to use failed examples (Che in Bolivia and the IRA in N.I.) but failed to discuss Che in Cuba and the IRA in the Republic. Although these were no doubt aided by international forces, they were profound. He also does not expand on his reference to the unique nature of the modern American Military as comprised of thinking and deep individuals who may defect - with some amount of conventional capability - should the choice become necessary.

In spite of these things - Revolutions occur, and sometimes they are philosophically historic. Rarely have they been simple or able to be chalked up to one cause or another.

All in all it was fair and informative because he understands the purpose of the amendment, understands the strong opposition to the notions, and is understanding of the evolving nature of government, citizens and warfare.

[Papewaio]

The change I'd make to give a revolution the logistical support it needs is:

"The people have the right to 3D print the arms that they shall bear."

Makes for a more flexible and well maintained ability. Also removes the corporate spin from the debate.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The change I'd make to give a revolution the logistical support it needs is:

"The people have the right to 3D print the arms that they shall bear."

Makes for a more flexible and well maintained ability. Also removes the corporate spin from the debate.

Oh I love that idea. Materials are not durable enough at this point to support auto-sear and prolonged full-auto fire, so nothing to be worried about... just yet.

[Ironside]

I'd also like my neighbors not to be helpless. I've never hear of a murder with a gun or even a shooting anywhere near my town. One guy went crazy and killed his wife and son, but they lived near the train tracks. It is amazing to me that the US has so little killing with all of the guns we've got. You guys live in a fantasy work where Americans are just bathing in each others blood all day long. The gun culture here is really incredible in that it is so peaceful

What town size are we talking about here?

Because it does feel like you're protecting yourself against tigers, even with a zoo nearby. It can happen, but the odds are minimal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What town size are we talking about here?

Because it does feel like you're protecting yourself against tigers, even with a zoo nearby. It can happen, but the odds are minimal.

I've always loved guns, ever since I was a really little kid. I've always wanted an ARand was blown away a few years ago when I found out they were legal in NY. I've worked on watches, I research tea ceremonies and I'm interested in the heavy duty militarization of civilians just because. I'm also buying a stripped lower so I can build another one to high end specs. Think of it as model ship building that you can play with

There are about 1.4 million people in Suffolk county which is rather small. Just over 1 hour east to west, 20 mins north to south. now that I recall there was one young kid who killed his ex gf with some sort of gun. The other murders were psychotic breakdown where a wife killed her husband by stabbing him with a knife 30 times and a husband who had a psychotic breakdown and murdered his wife and 10 year old son with a baseball bat like in the shining. 30 years ago there was a satanic ritual where a christian kid who got involved with drugs and the crazy people they come with was stabbed in the woods. Mostly stabbings. I'm not too worried about crime here at the moment

[Greyblades]

I dont think that answered his question.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I dont think that answered his question.

A town is a human settlement larger than a village but smaller than a city. The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.

[Ironside]

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.

Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?

Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.

You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.

[Greyblades]

Oh incidentally the NRA are now blaming this on media and video games.

The National Rifle Association held a press conference this morning defending guns rights and pointing the finger at big media. They also called for a national program for schools that would train school officials on how to best protect educational institutions. The program would use local volunteers and participation would be up to local communities and school boards.

But the gist of what we're interested in covering, is the gun lobby's attack on "violent media." Below is the part of the press conference where Wayne LaPierre (executive vice president of the National Rifle Association) aims his guns at movies, video games, and the media conglomerates that he claims give them cover:

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away."

I particularly like Penny arcade's response to it:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, it got me more confused, since that's city size. While it varies a lot by classification, anything above 5.000-100.000 is a city. Not a townie here, you city dweller.

Anyway, more to my point. If I get you correctly, you're living in a middle class suburban villa area with low crime rates (at least of the violent kind). Correct?

Yet you arm yourself to protect against Fallout cannibalistic raiders, since they are such a big threat.
Do you remember any local home invasions? You seem to recall most murders in the area. The urban guy living in the crime ridden areas do at least have a very clear reason for having heavy defense.

You are pretty much classified as a crazy paranoid, by default, in any other western country simply because the attitudes are so different. And the other regions that have a similar gun attitude are unstable/tribal/lacks a functional goverment/overrun by crocks. And that will colour the entire debate.

Sure. I live in dense suburbia. It is a well-to-do area where people are extremely polite and crime is nearly non-existent. It is also urbanizing quickly. As urban people are rapidly de-armed, I believe that the idea that we should rapidly arm in the face of urbanization isnt a terrible one, especially if it is a hobby. 40 years ago, my neighborhood was farmland occupied a low tens of thousands. It has seen extraordinary population growth and people per square mile. With this has come marked increases in lawlessness, particularly in Nassau county. I look to Queens and Nassau as an example of what to expect in another 10-20 years. It would be best to render city like gun control uselss in advance of eventual bans of lawful ownership.
Again, the people of the 5 boroughs are not allowed to carry a knife in excess of 3 inches with any ability to protect their hands with a lock. The right to defend yourself in NYC to a reasonable extent is non-existant. They also abuse due process with random checks - not for terror related objects mind you - but for small amounts of marijuana.

Also, I'm not paranoid. I have discretionary income, no interest in purchasing a home or fancy car, and an interest in the military - what else am I going to do with my money?
My fear of authoritative government abusing it's power is no greater than yours. My fear of criminal activity is no greater than yours. I simply would like to arm myself to the greatest extent possible. My fear of death is no greater than yours - but I will bet I have more life insurance to protect my wife than you do.
Preparation is not a sign of fear, it's not even an expectation that something will happen. For some it might be. I'm all about dressing well, not being aggressive and having an unimaginable amount of firepower. I have a tea collection and I did nothing beyond buy 2 bottles of smart water before Hurricane Sandy. I didn't regret it.

[Greyblades]

...You're on a gaming website and youy cant think of something better to do with your money than guns.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If I spent any more money on video games and components my hands would fall off. I can only play one computer at a time, but I can fire 30 guns simultaneously.... jk, lol

[Major Robert Dump]

The NRA copped out, not that anyone expected any less.

While I knew that "more security" would be something they said, I was a little off-put at their suggestion at volunteers (laughable) in the face of what will really pay for the added security: a large gun tax

I also found it rich that it was the fault of everything except the gun. I don't ever intend to renew my membership

[PanzerJaeger]

And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians that want to use the government to take them away.

[Greyblades]

And what, pray tell, is so heinous about confistcation that you say it with a tone that assumes that we would react to it like it was a call for holcaust?

Especially considering that you do the same with far less dangerous goods?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And yet, the NRA's plan has been the only one offered thus far that would actually do any good in preventing such tragedies in the future. As has been highlighted several times in this thread, gun bans cannot stop these kinds of actions. Now, whether we as a society would want to go down that path is another matter entirely. As I've said before, I don't think these actions are prevalent enough to force any sort of broad policy shift in any directly.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. The amount of anti-Obama junk mail they sent me during the election cycle was obscene. However, I will always support them simply because the other side is even more extreme. Consider the fact that confiscation is on the table. When the chips have been down, the NRA has been the only force standing between my legally purchased possessions and the leftist authoritarians that want to use the government to take them away.

I agree with this, of course. Armed responsible people in places where unarmed and defenseless children are is the best answer. We must also have more of an ability to recognize real threats before the action takes place. Scan addresses with criminal databases to get an idea of which addresses with criminals or the dangerously mentally ill also have applications for a background check, even if the other applicant is not a danger. Due process is required and a reasonable and short acceptance is a must, but surely if a major concern exists it is in the interest to dig deeper. Parents should be prosecuted if they encourage violent obsessions for their mentally ill or dangerous children. Adam Lanza had a civil commitment case pending - this should have automatically crossed with a serious mental health registry (people who are criminally insane, people who have expressed serious depressive feelings and a willingness to harm others, the schizophrenic, bi-polar, borderline). Leave out people who are depressed as that is 1/4 of the population.

[Greyblades]

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

[Ironside]

I just don't understand people who are comfortable without a gun. There's not a lot of crime in Eugene, but there's enough--and the cops are so broke they can't even keep people in jail.

Call me paranoid, but I'd rather be prepared for any eventuality.

It's because the situations were a gun would be useful is quite rare and due to the different culture, if you actually are robbed, they don't use a gun either.

Avoid being alone and drunk in the center parts of the city during late weekends, avoid taking out money when followed by a youth gang and you're pretty much covered.

[Beskar]

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated. I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

Only advantage to have widespread access to guns would be to fight against a Zombie Apocalypse, simply because they are powerful ranged weapons.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Guns are a tool with the sole purpose of killing, there is no other purpose at all. People argue "So why not ban cars? people die due to those" and it is simple, because cars are used for transport and travel, they are not for mowing people down in and they are regulated.

And when someone is attacking you or your family, you want a weapon that can kill them. So a tool with the purpose of killing someone is a good thing when innocent people are being attacked and need to defend themselves. They are the most effective tools of self defense available. Have you considered dhow many people would be killed or raped by criminals if they didn't have a gun to protect themselves?

I guess it is the advantage of knowing I won't be shot whilst walking down the street, no random psychopath is suddenly going to come out guns blazing and shoot people in the middle of the town centre, they simply don't have access. Most of the gun crimes are illegally-obtained guns 'borrowed' from Legal owners, in the UK, that is virtually no one, in America, it is virtually everyone, this is why a kid can takes mommy's gun and just blast apart a school. They have access.

Making legislation based on extremely rare events is just plain stupid. The Patriot Act was wrong and any new gun ban they pass will not work. Handguns are explicitly constitutionally protected, and that's what was used in the largest school shooting spree. And even if all guns were banned, there'd still be access - even in Europe many millions of guns are unregistered:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/2...ys-bred-defian

And you're wrong - this would not prevent massacres. It would just shift the attack. It's like the TSA banning liquids; useless because it ignores the attacker and focuses on the weapon.

If the access to the guns were not there, then these incidents would not happen. It is really that simple, unfortunately. Protection against 'mythical' overthrow of government is a really bad argument, since a successful overthrow would require defectors from the armed forced, popular support and foreign intervention.

Even if it did require those things, widespread civilian gun ownership would make things much easier and maybe scare the government off from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

Because our police arent so broke they cant even keep people in jail. Seriously dude, if its that bad why are the right wing pro gun american orginizations spreading blame on the media, video games, mental health etc, when they have such a blatant problem in thier police forces?

And that's not a hypothetical question, why?

The NRA and other gun rights groups don't want to go up against the police unions.

Now, you could argue that getting rid of other rights - like privacy and requiring the police to get warrant before searching everyone or tapping their phones, and the right to not self-incriminate - could be ended and save a lot of people.

But we don't throw away our rights - or we shouldn't, at least - because of some hysteria.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A town is a human settlement larger than a village but smaller than a city. The size definition for what constitutes a "town" varies considerably in different parts of the world, so that, for example, many "small towns" in the United States would be regarded as villages in the United Kingdom, while many British "small towns" would qualify as cities in the United States.

The "Town" in which I have lived for most of my life contains 203k. The town I now live in contains approx 335k people and is within a 10 minute drive. As almost all of my life has been spent in between or around these towns within Western Suffolk County, my "human settlement that is larger rthan a village but smaller than a city" is Western Suffolk County. As almost all of the population that lives in Suffolk county lives in Western Suffolk county, I decided to use Suffolk county as my "Town". Does this answer the question to your satisfaction?

Just to add, before I moved to my new town, actually before I was born, a classmate of my father in law murdered someone and kept the body in his basement until he was caught years later. Non gunshot homicide. The homicide rate is almost entirely within major metropolitan areas of the United States. It is largely confined to the most impoverished areas which happen to have the largest ratio of non-white to white people. Handguns are most often used, rifles to a much lower extent, semi-auto rifles to a statistically irrelevant.

I live in a small city of 120,000.

A City is actually a settlement with a Civic Charter of some kind - a town is a large settlement with ammenities above those of a village. In the UK Towns are self-proclaimed Civil Parishes which are towns - unless they are Borough Towns - Cities have Royal Charters.

So Winchester, population 42,000 (ish) is a city while Basingstoke, population 140,000 (ish), is only a town.

In the US I would say a good rubric would be whether you have a City Mayor, whether you have regularly sitting upper courts, and a professional Police Dept. as opposed to a Sheriff.

In any case - you clearly aren't in the Wild West and it sounds like you don't need a gun. Or rather, if you need a gun then I need a gun - given the number of people in my city who have been raped or beaten near-to death.

[Brenus]

So the NRA is saying the only solution is to put Armed Guards in the schools. Splendid! Fire fighters were attack as well, so I suppose the solution is to equip the fire fighters with weapons as well. I just want to see them attacking a fire with their live munitions around their belts. ..

Of course to give weapons in schools won’t stop this kind of attack (do we have figures about killing spree actually stop by men or women with weapons. Because I think, (but I am not sure) that a lot of Americans have weapons. So, how many killing were avoided? How many persons coming in a crowd and opening fire were actually prevented to do so by a casual armed Americans (Armericans: sorry, I couldn’t resist)? In the army, attacking even armed people, especially not trained ones, by surprise, is call an ambush. And amateurish fighters can do a lot of damage because they have the surprise. So, how armed guards will stop killing: well, they can’t.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What do you guys think?

[Papewaio]

Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:

http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/...228-2bz8u.html

Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/1...=1356742625991

An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Annual death statistics for Australia in 2010 with a pretty bubble graph:

http://m.smh.com.au/national/health/...228-2bz8u.html

Picture:
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2012/1...=1356742625991

An Aussie 15 year old boy has an 8% chance of dying by 60. A US 15 yr old boy a 14% chance by 60.

Your homicide rate is 1/4 ours. Why isn't it listed in that picture?