Connecticut Elementary School.

http://youtu.be/A_4OJkGP8bw

Now THESE are MY people!

If the shooter at that school had run into any one of these people upon entering that building, not a single child would have died. PERIOD!

What does the 5th amendment have to do with the price of tea in China? Originally Posted by GP

Maybe nothing. Is OSD suggesting that people should be committed simply because people might find them socially awkward, or is he simply suggesting that mentally ill people should be denied the right to own a gun?

quite the carbon footprint , prolly not as much as al gores private jet but well look the other way for that

(BTW, the term "assault weapon" is being misused here. Please stop. Those of you who throw it around are showing your technical ignorance of the issue. And you have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" of the gun ban folks, i.e. misusing this term to scare folks into thinking the streets are filled with military weapons).
Originally Posted by rooster

What a lazy comment. The term "assault weapon", from a strict technical standpoint, may be misused somewhat. But in more every-day terms, it's simply referring to weapons that allow 20 kids to be slaughtered in a matter of 5 minutes. Whether there are 50 of them on the streets or 5 million is irrelevant.

Sorry, but the legal access to weapons which allow someone to kill 27 people in an elementary school (or anywhere else, Anita) in a matter of 5 minutes is part of the problem. A pretty big part, i'd wager.
Originally Posted by Doove

Somewhat misused? It is understandable that the history of the "every-day" term is not generally known. Media and anti-gun groups have misused it for so long that it has become popular. But the "technical" term is generally accepted as referring to a true military-grade weapon with automatic fire capability. The term did not really make it into common, "every-day" use until it was intentionally misused by people like Josh Sugarmann, of the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns" and "The Violence Policy Center". I'll let him use his own words:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Now, he did not invent the term. And he was not the first to misuse it. But his is one of the most flagrant examples of how it has been INTENTIONALLY misused to confuse the issue and mislead the public as to the true capabilities and intentions of these weapons. The fact that it has now become "every day" does not negate my point. The way many are using it is incorrect and serves nothing but to help propagate fear and confusion. You can continue to use the term and argue that its meaning has changed.... or that I am fixated on this issue for reasons no longer important. But it is like those who say "the data is in" rather than "the data are in." Just because 99.9 percent of people do not know that the word is plural does not mean that it is correct to keep saying it. It is ignorant. Mutual friends would agree.

As to "legal access to weapons which allow someone to kill 27 people" in five minutes..... I hate to break it to you, folks, but you can buy one at Walmart for about $250. It's called a 12 guage pump shotgun, and your Grandpa probably owns one. Maybe two. And he has for 70 years. Millions of people know how to use them well enough to accomplish what this guy in Connecticut did. All of this stuff about "high-capacity magazines" and "rapid rates of fire" being inherently more deadly is a bunch of crap. A person reasonably competent with a 12 guage could slaughter dozens in minutes. Ask anyone who really understands firearms.

Lastly, a favor, please. If you reply to this, please explain why my original comment is "lazy." WTF....

That statistic is not valid, and again, it is mostly for reasons of demographics.

Here is why:

They used two groups of people for this study. The first was a group of "random" people who were shot. The second was a group that was not.

Sounds reasonable, right? Nope. It is apples and oranges. Reason: who are the people likely to be shot in a gun crime? Well.... it ain't people like most of us. We are simply not likely to be in those situations. It is people involved in "lifestyles" and situations that put them at very high risk. Read between the lines on that one. They are many times more likely to be shot in general. They are not representative of the general population.

The NRA doesn't need to fund any study to discredit this. Anyone with a background in proper scientific method and an understanding of the socio-economic conditions in this country can debunk it in a second. It is a piece of shit, plain and simple. But it sure sounds good, doesn't it? Originally Posted by rooster

If i understand your comment, then one of us is mis-reading the article on the study, and i think it's you. Badly.

It's not suggesting that people in the general population are 4.5X more likely to be shot if they own a gun (as your comment seems to suggest it's trying to say). It's suggesting that people involved in an assault are 4.5X more likely to be shot if they own a gun.

And frankly, it makes perfect sense. If someone is pointing a gun at you, is he more likely to shoot you if you do nothing, or if you go for a gun yourself?

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

And if i correctly understand your critique of the study, then again, your bias is showing. If not, i apologize. Originally Posted by Doove

I wonder if we BOTH might be mis-reading it. Because it is one confusing article. I've re-read it a bunch of times and I am still not sure.

(I suppose I will have to get off my ass and find the actual study itself, not try to decipher this poorly written article)

But here is how I understand it. Correct me if you think I am still getting it wrong. There was a group of 667 people examined that had been shot during an assault. And another group that had not. Was this second group assaulted? It's not clear, but it sounds like they were not. And as the article said, "These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting."

So again, one group got assaulted and shot. One group didn't. Why?

I must ask again..... what are the types of people most likely to be shot? In this country.... and especially in a big city like Philly.... I am fairly sure that the answer is that it is people who are not like most of us. They live in inner-cities and are surrounded by... or participate in!!... risky and illegal lifestyles. And a fairly high percentage of them carry guns! And they get assaulted. And shot. A lot. More than the "control" group, which was a bunch of people who did not get shot (and... it seems... was not even assaulted).

I don't think that all of the variables were well-controlled here. There just MIGHT be more than one reason why some of the first group were at higher risk of being assaulted / shot. And yes, carrying a gun did not necessarily help them. Maybe it even put them at higher risk. But they are not the same risks as faced (or not faced) by the control group of people who do not have risk factors that made them more likely to be assaulted / shot to begin with.

If I deal drugs, I have a high risk of being shot. If I carry a gun, maybe it is even higher. But that is more because of my lifestyle than anything else. It is not the same set of circumstance or risks that describe the situation of a middle-class white Male living in Penfield.

Again, I might still be wrong here. Or we might both be. But the article does NOT mention that the variables that concern me were controlled. And drug dealers get shot. Even if they have guns.

And BTW, I freely admit my "bias." But it is caused by nothing more than a profound frustration at the misuse of facts and the misunderstandings that cause many to blame guns despite the racial, domestic, economic and mental health problems that cause most violent crimes in this country. That's it. I don't actively support the NRA nor anyone else. And I don't vote single issue in elections. I am really upset when innocent people get shot. But then I have to listen to asshats like Slaughter and Cuomo use those tragedies to further THEIR bias. Fuck....

Always remember that Statistics is the the simple manipulation of data to suit your own purposes.

doove...i yesterday heard the shooter did indeed shoot out a window to gain access to the school..so you werre correct about that.. ..as i also understand the shooter was diagnosed with asperger's ayndrome ..although it's not linked to violent tendencies..if one were to have violent tendencies..the behavior coming from "As" can mask or cloak any symptoms of his behavior changing basically it would take some time before the mother knew he deeper problems...just wanted to put this out there...im sure ya'll know this already..i havent watched the tube for a couple of days since my daughter's were home..i thought it best for them to not see the reports..

Apparently the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, not only concerning guns, but any and all types of guns.

The 5th amendment, not so much. Originally Posted by Doove

they where abused and over use. closing was not the answer. stopping the abuse was the answer.

I worked with a guy that a few months ago was arrested at work for a mental illness issue.(I was there on the same shift it went down just before are shift was to start) Was released same day as he did nothing. Few days latter drove his car wrong way on 390 in a act of murder suicide. Do we give up cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc also. To me and other at work he was clearly a danger to self and others that day. He was a strange duck with a known problem. But that day he was very different from what was normal for him. Maybe if held and checked better then. He would have been back at work by now. And the other/s also still be alive.

Connecticut does have a assault weapon law on the books. Yet the BushMaster .223 did not fall under that law.

mmmmm can I be sure of weapon. so much told on the news was wrong.

It is so sad
I think if they had armed security at schools like there were at my school and if they had armed teachers this sick fuck would have been gunned down before he got in.

to me it pretty simple, Restrict or out law automatic weapons Period !

deer rifles, hand guns stricter laws on purchasing.!

If all guns banned it will only effect law abiding people,

Bad Guys will still have them !!

what more restrictions do you want on hand guns?



you already have to get an on site fbi backround check, they phone in all your info

fill out paperwork at the dealer

then go pyhsically to the county clerk to update your permit

then wait,, at minimum two weeks for the judge to approve for brady bill

your insane

To get a handgun permit in NY can take from 3 months to over a year depending on your county. Training course, references, finger prints, background checks, interviews, family interviewed, neighbors interviewed. How much harder can they make it?

to me it pretty simple, Restrict or out law automatic weapons Period !

deer rifles, hand guns stricter laws on purchasing.!

If all guns banned it will only effect law abiding people,

Bad Guys will still have them !! Originally Posted by iggy

Automatic weapons ARE outlawed in NY State. And many others.

In some states, they are allowed. But you couldn't get your hands on one if you tried. The supply is severely restricted, due to the Gun Control Act of 1986.

The Act banned sales of any automatic weapons manufactured after the date the bill went into effect. This means that there have been no new guns available for private citizens since 1986. The end result is that the value of these few weapons left has skyrocketed - $10 Grand PLUS, if you can find anyone willing to sell. Only very serious collectors own them now.

The last time these guns were studied, the ATF said it had no evidence that any of them had EVER been used in a crime.

The main problem with all of this dialog about "assault weapons" is that people who have no experience with them easily confuse them with military weapons based on their appearance alone. They think that these guns ARE automatic weapons.... or that they are at least "more deadly" than firearms of a more conventional appearance. They are not. Even with "high capacity magazines."

As I alluded to before, the average hunter or skeet shooter who is reasonably skilled with a 12 guage pump shotgun from Walmart could kill dozens of people in a few minutes.

Millions of people.... and I mean MILLIONS.... own the types of firearms that are now commonly called "assault weapons." And they use them for legal purposes only. If anyone tells you that these guns have "no sporting use," they are full of shit. The most popular one, the "AR-15", has become THE gun of choice for millions of competitive target shooters. And they shoot billions of rounds a year. They don't shoot kids. Only pieces of paper. And they get REALLY pissed when someone says you should take away their guns because some whack job kills a bunch of people with one that looks similar.

Gee rooster, so it seems the logical conclusion would be that the only people who are getting these automatic weapons are collectors or criminals. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that serious collectors are not out committing crimes.