Elementary School Shooting In Connecticut

[mynameisbob84]

You UK pussies that gave your rights to defend yourself can stop preaching with your holier than thou attitude because it will never happen here.

:thumbleft:

 

[Nordling]

You call Brits pussies because they're not so paranoid that they have to keep penis substitutes around them at all times?

Bad, bad logic.

When I was in Asia--Hong Kong, Singapore... the Brits I befriended were anything but "pussies."

 

[Bocefish]

You call Brits pussies because they're not so paranoid that they have to keep penis substitutes around them at all times?

Bad, bad logic.

When I was in Asia--Hong Kong, Singapore... the Brits I befriended were anything but "pussies."

Stop putting words in my mouth and try some reading comprehension. I couldn't give a shit who you blew in Asia or Hong Kong and nobody said anything about having home defense weapons with them at all times. And there you go with that penis reference again.

 

[Bocefish]

Nope, I didn't read it because it will either just be another whine trying to cover bad parenting or another example of how fucked your health care is. Its not a tragedy, its the trade-off the US makes to be a nation of gun happy nutbags with shitty healthcare, so either fix it or stop whining when it happens

Well it clearly is a tragedy. Regardless of what country it happens in, and regardless of that country's gun laws, any time 26 children are shot dead... it's a tragedy.

But regrettably, the loss of innocent life is the trade-off for legal gun ownership.

With anything dangerous there is risk.

Like Scary statistics?

How’s this? Every 22 minutes someone dies in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident.

And perhaps, most horrible of all a disproportionately high number of those deaths and accidents come in the 15 to 24 age group. A lot of young people are, in fact, dying before they get old …dying tragic, meaningless deaths.

Do we ban cars or alcohol?

You UK pussies that gave up your rights to defend yourself can stop preaching with your holier than thou attitude because it will never happen here.

Quoted for full context.

 

[Just Me]

Nope, I didn't read it because it will either just be another whine trying to cover bad parenting or another example of how fucked your health care is. Its not a tragedy, its the trade-off the US makes to be a nation of gun happy nutbags with shitty healthcare, so either fix it or stop whining when it happens

Well it clearly is a tragedy. Regardless of what country it happens in, and regardless of that country's gun laws, any time 26 children are shot dead... it's a tragedy.

But regrettably, the loss of innocent life is the trade-off for legal gun ownership.

With anything dangerous there is risk.

Like Scary statistics?

How’s this? Every 22 minutes someone dies in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident.

And perhaps, most horrible of all a disproportionately high number of those deaths and accidents come in the 15 to 24 age group. A lot of young people are, in fact, dying before they get old …dying tragic, meaningless deaths.

Do we ban cars or alcohol?

You UK pussies that gave your rights to defend yourself can stop preaching with your holier than thou attitude because it will never happen here.

If you start with the false assumption that a gun in the home for protection kills more criminals than innocents you would have a point. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Do we ban cars or alcohol? You do neither. You make laws restricting the use of them together, then you keep tightening those laws until you get the desired outcome. Hmmm I wonder what else that would work on. :dance:

 

[Nordling]

You call Brits pussies because they're not so paranoid that they have to keep penis substitutes around them at all times?

Bad, bad logic.

When I was in Asia--Hong Kong, Singapore... the Brits I befriended were anything but "pussies."

Stop putting words in my mouth and try some reading comprehension. I couldn't give a shit who you blew in Asia or Hong Kong and nobody said anything about having home defense weapons with them at all times. And there you go with that penis reference again.

:lol: It seems apt, considering your obsession with guns. I only quoted what you said...and you said, "you UK pussies." What did I misquote? The second part of the sentence, "because they're...." was not a quote but a good assumption.

 

[Bocefish]

Nope, I didn't read it because it will either just be another whine trying to cover bad parenting or another example of how fucked your health care is. Its not a tragedy, its the trade-off the US makes to be a nation of gun happy nutbags with shitty healthcare, so either fix it or stop whining when it happens

Well it clearly is a tragedy. Regardless of what country it happens in, and regardless of that country's gun laws, any time 26 children are shot dead... it's a tragedy.

But regrettably, the loss of innocent life is the trade-off for legal gun ownership.

With anything dangerous there is risk.

Like Scary statistics?

How’s this? Every 22 minutes someone dies in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident.

And perhaps, most horrible of all a disproportionately high number of those deaths and accidents come in the 15 to 24 age group. A lot of young people are, in fact, dying before they get old …dying tragic, meaningless deaths.

Do we ban cars or alcohol?

You UK pussies that gave your rights to defend yourself can stop preaching with your holier than thou attitude because it will never happen here.

If you start with the false assumption that a gun in the home for protection kills more criminals than innocents you would have a point. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Do we ban cars or alcohol? You do neither. You make laws restricting the use of them together, then you keep tightening those laws until you get the desired outcome. Hmmm I wonder what else that would work on. :dance:

Which law would have stopped the 20 year old from killing those innocent people? It's illegal for him to have or use firearms without parental supervision. For all we know, the mother did everything she could possibly do correctly. It's like trying to defend against a suicide bomber that doesn't care about anything but killing. Which laws do we create to defend against driven killer with nothing to lose? Which gun do we ban, the rifle, the pistols, all guns? Video games too? Just throw out the 2nd Amendment all together?

Give me a sensible solution that doesn't punish innocent, law abiding citizens or infringe on their rights and I'll be open to it.

 

[UncleThursday]

How’s this? Every 22 minutes someone dies in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident.

And perhaps, most horrible of all a disproportionately high number of those deaths and accidents come in the 15 to 24 age group. A lot of young people are, in fact, dying before they get old …dying tragic, meaningless deaths.

Do we ban cars or alcohol?

The US already tried banning alcohol. It was called Prohibition. The drive was led by the Anti-Saloon Lobby and the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

The results were far from what the people pushing for Prohibition intended. The single biggest thing to come out of Prohibition, that is still around today, was major organized crime in the US. While there was always a semblance of organized crime in the US, it never reached the prosperity and power it achieved with the advent of Prohibition; and their realizing instead of controlling small parts of major cities or neighborhoods within them, that they could expand their influence far greater by joining forces and becoming truly organized. Some mob families controlled entire regions of the US, and still have major sway in them now.

As it is said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

...

Now, going back to other thoughts, like simply calling the police and waiting for assistance. There's another saying, there, too. When seconds count, help is only minutes away.

And, depending on where you live, that could be many minutes away. In poorer, urban areas, it could take the police up to 20 or more minutes to arrive; since those areas tend to be dangerous for them, they wont go in without a lot of backup. Or if you live on a farm that's a few hundred acres. Even if the police mean to get there ASAP, it could still take them a long while. Even in my suburban, mostly middle class area, police response is around 10 minutes, on average. Ambulances can take the same, or longer, to arrive.

If someone breaks into a home, and they have an average of 10+ minutes before the police arrive, well, that's more than enough time to steal what they want and potentially harm or kill the home owner. Doesn't matter if the intruder has no firearm, either. A baseball bat, knife from the kitchen, their own knife, or anything else they might pick up in the home can be made into a very deadly weapon.

 

[LadyLuna]

Give me a sensible solution that doesn't punish innocent, law abiding citizens or infringe on their rights and I'll be open to it.

Better mental health care for those with mental problems. Testing for mental health problems in high school to catch them better. Something better than treatment in a prison for mental health problems, something that can be done without institutionalizing those who don't really need to be out of society. Less of a stigma against those who have mental health issues.

Pushing for effective tactics at dealing with bullying at schools. Encouraging kids to not bully or outcast each other. Therapy for the outcasts which focuses on social skills. Implementing in schools basic moral codes like don't steal and don't kill without reason, that continue past second grade.

Loosening up on the family services calling in for simple punishment. Better definitions about what is abuse/neglect, and what is just punishment. Teaching parents the difference, so they can effectively raise their children.

Stop naming the shooters. Instead of "Joe Black killed 5 students", the wording should be "Nicole Smith, Jacob Perry, __, ___, and ___ were shot dead in school today" Or "elementary students were shot by a 22 year old man today, we're still waiting on details and names of the deceased"

I'm sure there's more that can be done, but these would be a good start.

 

[UncleThursday]

Buy the way, a few pages back, someone used Switzerland and Israel as examples of countries where guns are widespread and even encouraged by the government. Turns out that never was completely true and is even less true now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Also turns out, Dr. Rosenbaum might have been completely wrong in her research.

http://finemrespice.com/node/120

Comments in the Washington Post article, from people living in Israel, also seem to debunk her claim, but without any hard data, it is impossible to verify that those people a. live in Israel, or b. know what they're talking about.

The Finem Respice article, though, does cite references, including official Swiss ones.

 

[Bocefish]

FWIW... Latest unconfirmed rumors are the shooter snapped because he likely found out his mother was filing the necessary conservatorship paperwork to have him committed against his will and thought she loved the kids at the school where she volunteered more than him. She was at her wit's end according to her close friends and couldn't handle him by herself anymore.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/lanza-school- ... /id/468276

 

[UncleThursday]

Give me a sensible solution that doesn't punish innocent, law abiding citizens or infringe on their rights and I'll be open to it.

Better mental health care for those with mental problems. Testing for mental health problems in high school to catch them better. Something better than treatment in a prison for mental health problems, something that can be done without institutionalizing those who don't really need to be out of society. Less of a stigma against those who have mental health issues.

Pushing for effective tactics at dealing with bullying at schools. Encouraging kids to not bully or outcast each other. Therapy for the outcasts which focuses on social skills. Implementing in schools basic moral codes like don't steal and don't kill without reason, that continue past second grade.

Loosening up on the family services calling in for simple punishment. Better definitions about what is abuse/neglect, and what is just punishment. Teaching parents the difference, so they can effectively raise their children.

Stop naming the shooters. Instead of "Joe Black killed 5 students", the wording should be "Nicole Smith, Jacob Perry, __, ___, and ___ were shot dead in school today" Or "elementary students were shot by a 22 year old man today, we're still waiting on details and names of the deceased"

I'm sure there's more that can be done, but these would be a good start.

Great post, Luna.

I'll add in what I feel would be good 'gun control' without the senseless 'ban them all' mentality. Some of these I mentioned before.

Stricter penalties for crimes involving guns, even if no one is hurt. Perhaps even mandatory minimum sentencing (they do it for pot, they can do it for crimes involving guns, and pot is WAY less dangerous).

The same penalties levied against those who knowingly buy guns, legally, to be used in the illegal endeavors. Example: buying a gun for a friend who can't buy one because of his criminal background, and he then uses said gun in a crime. The person buying the gun would face the same charges and penalties as the criminal, plus additional charges for supplying the criminal with a weapon.

Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms to the authorities, who then come and check to make sure the weapon truly is gone. Failure to report lost or stolen weapons used in a crime ends up with hefty fines, the revoking of your right to own firearms and jail time.

More rigid training in responsible gun ownership by gun shops and/or organizations like the NRA. Part of this would lead into what I posted above, making gun owners more aware to check on their firearms and ensure they are where they are supposed to be. Also education in cleaning them (many accidental deaths are from cleaning weapons thought to be empty), proper and safe storage out of the reach of children, etc.

More rigid training of police in the use of their firearms. As much as people would hate to admit it, cops can be some of the worst shots on the planet, especially if they are in an area with a low crime rate. There are stories of cops who never had to draw their weapon while having years of service duty, finally drawing it, and it misfires due to being dirty, or they hit an innocent bystander, etc. If the police are required to have their weapons on them, they damn well need to be properly trained in gun safety, maintenance, and how to properly shoot them.

Ideas like these bring about more responsible gun ownership as well as give the law the ability to punish criminals adequately for using a gun in a crime; without falling into the 'just get rid of them all' idea that will never work.

 

[Red7227]

The same penalties levied against those who knowingly buy guns, legally, to be used in the illegal endeavors. Example: buying a gun for a friend who can't buy one because of his criminal background, and he then uses said gun in a crime. The person buying the gun would face the same charges and penalties as the criminal, plus additional charges for supplying the criminal with a weapon.

Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms to the authorities, who then come and check to make sure the weapon truly is gone. Failure to report lost or stolen weapons used in a crime ends up with hefty fines, the revoking of your right to own firearms and jail time.

More rigid training in responsible gun ownership by gun shops and/or organizations like the NRA. Part of this would lead into what I posted above, making gun owners more aware to check on their firearms and ensure they are where they are supposed to be. Also education in cleaning them (many accidental deaths are from cleaning weapons thought to be empty), proper and safe storage out of the reach of children, etc.

What has made a staggering difference in Australia is limiting a gun owner to only buying ammunition for the guns they own. Of course we also require a reason for gun ownership and limit people to only owning guns for the purpose stated. Home defence isn't an acceptable reason so most people just have double shotguns and .22s for ducks and rabbits. Owning a rifle is actually pretty rare, and they are all single shot or bolt actions.

 

[lexmark402003]

this hasn't really happened in Australia though, gun homocides are down significantly in every state, as Red and I (I think the only aussies in the thread) have said several times lol. Criminals use their guns to shoot other criminals mainly. Bikies for example don't generally bother shooting civilians because it's just dumb, there's no profit in it and it brings heat down on them.

Ironically most gun deaths in the US are also criminal against criminal. Gangs shooting it out between each other, etc. But there are cases where innocent bystanders are shot and killed (like in robberies, for example). Biker gangs, the different mobs, the Blood and Crips, etc. while they have no qualms about killing people not involved, tend to really make the majority of their shots go towards other criminals encroaching on their turf. Another problem, though, is the fact that most of these criminals rarely know the right end of the gun from the wrong, and in their shoot outs end up hitting innocents in the crossfire, because they can barely hit the broadside of a planet when they're aiming at it.

Suicides are the number 1 cause of gun deaths. By far. But we all know that the guy who shot himself could just as easily jump off a building, swallow a bottle of pills, or slash his wrists. Guns don't commit suicide, people with serious problems do.

But gun deaths related to crime are the next largest category. Most often involved with the insane "War on Drugs"- criminals killing each other, cops killing criminals, criminals killing cops. Innocent bystanders sometimes being caught in the cross fire.

Frankly, if you are not suicidal and not a criminal, your chances of being killed by a gun are extremely low, far less than your chances of winning the lottery.

Getting help for suicidal people and ending the insane "War on Drugs" would be quicker and more effective method of ending gun violence than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I would also suggest that declaring schools, churches, etc "gun free zones" is kind of like posting a sign out front saying "crazy guy, come in here and shoot the place up, because no one is going to be able to fight back."

There is a reason we frequently see mass shootings at schools, churches, government buildings and other "gun free zones" where the shooter is guaranteed to face nothing but helpless victims, but we never see them at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, or NRA conventions where anyone who chose to open fire would have a life expectancy of about 10 seconds.

The wolf goes after the defenseless sheep in the pen, he doesn't tangle with the big dog on the porch...

 

[Mirra]

Frankly, if you are not suicidal and not a criminal, your chances of being killed by a gun are extremely low, far less than your chances of winning the lottery.

I doubt it... but even IF it were true, at least they get to choose to go buy the lottery ticket in order to have that chance at all. I have a feeling most victims of gun related homicides don't have any choice when it comes to being shot.

I would also suggest that declaring schools, churches, etc "gun free zones" is kind of like posting a sign out front saying "crazy guy, come in here and shoot the place up, because no one is going to be able to fight back."

People keep saying that and I do live in South Carolina so maybe we're exceptions, but our safety officers in high school both had guns and the campus police at my university all carry guns in spite of all of the "no concealable weapons" notices posted everywhere.

There is a reason we frequently see mass shootings at schools, churches, government buildings and other "gun free zones" where the shooter is guaranteed to face nothing but helpless victims, but we never see them at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, or NRA conventions where anyone who chose to open fire would have a life expectancy of about 10 seconds.

Really? When I think of WHY a place is made a gun free zone, it seems to explain to me why they would be targeted. Not BECAUSE they are gun free zones. As for the "at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, or NRA conventions" why don't we name all of the other places gun violence is rare/non-existent? Very few of them will have such strong ties to guns as those places you decided to list. Your logical connections are tenuous.

 

[Harvrath]

People point out our high murder rate as proof we need gun control.
People point to our drug problem and say we need more War on Drugs.
People point to Drunk-Driving problem and say do something. We could put a breathalyzer in every car and make it so that the car won't start without a clean breathalyzer test.
People point out to our obesity problem and say, ban fat, soft-drink and junk food.

When do we drop the bullshit pretense and admit that all of our problems stem from people?

 

[LadyLuna]

The same penalties levied against those who knowingly buy guns, legally, to be used in the illegal endeavors. Example: buying a gun for a friend who can't buy one because of his criminal background, and he then uses said gun in a crime. The person buying the gun would face the same charges and penalties as the criminal, plus additional charges for supplying the criminal with a weapon.

What has made a staggering difference in Australia is limiting a gun owner to only buying ammunition for the guns they own. Of course we also require a reason for gun ownership and limit people to only owning guns for the purpose stated. Home defence isn't an acceptable reason so most people just have double shotguns and .22s for ducks and rabbits. Owning a rifle is actually pretty rare, and they are all single shot or bolt actions.

Uncle Thursday, the bit in bold... I'm not sure I agree with that. I definitely think the person should have some sort of punishment, but not for the crimes the other person committed. Maybe half the punishment the criminal got and a stiff fine, on top of a revocation of the license held by the person who bought the guns? Or maybe a punishment equivalent to the crime the criminal did the time before, since if before it was just armed robbery and now it's murder, well, the only thing the friend knew was that his friend was a crook, not a killer. Other than that, all good points.

Red- if we implement this BUT home defense is included as an appropriate reason to buy a revolver or similar weapon, then I'd be cool with it in the US. But the US is very big, and has a lot of neighborhoods where I wouldn't want to live without a gun in the house, preferably that I spend time cleaning outside so the criminals know I have a gun. Also, for the points Bocefish made, saying that you'll use it if you get attacked by a wolf-pack and showing that you do indeed own a four-wheeler or snowmobile should be good enough for that sort of defense.

I think, in the US, if the shooting ranges have the guns and ammo for the guns, that will satisfy those who want to be able to have fun shooting. And maybe collector licenses for those who like to collect, because I can't deny people their right to collect something they find awesome.

 

[Bocefish]

^^ The part in bold varies state by state.

 

[Just Me]

Frankly, if you are not suicidal and not a criminal, your chances of being killed by a gun are extremely low, far less than your chances of winning the lottery.

Getting help for suicidal people and ending the insane "War on Drugs" would be quicker and more effective method of ending gun violence than taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I would also suggest that declaring schools, churches, etc "gun free zones" is kind of like posting a sign out front saying "crazy guy, come in here and shoot the place up, because no one is going to be able to fight back."

There is a reason we frequently see mass shootings at schools, churches, government buildings and other "gun free zones" where the shooter is guaranteed to face nothing but helpless victims, but we never see them at gun shows, gun shops, shooting ranges, or NRA conventions where anyone who chose to open fire would have a life expectancy of about 10 seconds.

The wolf goes after the defenseless sheep in the pen, he doesn't tangle with the big dog on the porch...

Odds of being murdered by a stranger with a firearm (in the US), 1 in 42,000 chance. Winning $1,000 in a California scratch off ticket, 1 in 960,000. So no, your chances of being killed by a gun are much more likely.

Why do these events happen at schools, churches and government buildings? Because that is where their perceived grievance is. It is very rare for these shootings to take place in some completely random place.

 

[Bocefish]

Odds of being murdered by a stranger with a firearm (in the US), 1 in 42,000 chance. Winning $1,000 in a California scratch off ticket, 1 in 960,000. So no, your chances of being killed by a gun are much more likely.

Comparing statistics like that don't mean squat. The scratch-off tickets may be random odds but there are a shitload of variables that go into being killed by a gun, many of which we have control over.

 

[UncleThursday]

What has made a staggering difference in Australia is limiting a gun owner to only buying ammunition for the guns they own. Of course we also require a reason for gun ownership and limit people to only owning guns for the purpose stated. Home defence isn't an acceptable reason so most people just have double shotguns and .22s for ducks and rabbits. Owning a rifle is actually pretty rare, and they are all single shot or bolt actions.

Home defense would be a top priority for me in Australia.... From the fucking SPIDERS!

You ain't stepping on that shit!

 

[Red7227]

Home defense would be a top priority for me in Australia.... From the fucking SPIDERS!

Avoiding them is easy, you leave all the tiny weeny spiders alone that you find living on your windows alone. That's because if you kill those you end up with gigantic hairy fuckers all over the house. Air rifles just make them mad, butane blow torches work nicely, while the end of a baseball bat works too, but its only for the highly motivated and dexterous. Screaming like a girl while mincing like a ballerina is a pretty the standard response if you miss and the fucker drops to the floor. and yes I have used a shotgun on one in the corner of the room (shot replaced with sand)

 

[Red7227]

The same penalties levied against those who knowingly buy guns, legally, to be used in the illegal endeavors. Example: buying a gun for a friend who can't buy one because of his criminal background, and he then uses said gun in a crime. The person buying the gun would face the same charges and penalties as the criminal, plus additional charges for supplying the criminal with a weapon.

What has made a staggering difference in Australia is limiting a gun owner to only buying ammunition for the guns they own. Of course we also require a reason for gun ownership and limit people to only owning guns for the purpose stated. Home defence isn't an acceptable reason so most people just have double shotguns and .22s for ducks and rabbits. Owning a rifle is actually pretty rare, and they are all single shot or bolt actions.

Uncle Thursday, the bit in bold... I'm not sure I agree with that. I definitely think the person should have some sort of punishment, but not for the crimes the other person committed. Maybe half the punishment the criminal got and a stiff fine, on top of a revocation of the license held by the person who bought the guns? Or maybe a punishment equivalent to the crime the criminal did the time before, since if before it was just armed robbery and now it's murder, well, the only thing the friend knew was that his friend was a crook, not a killer. Other than that, all good points.

Red- if we implement this BUT home defense is included as an appropriate reason to buy a revolver or similar weapon, then I'd be cool with it in the US. But the US is very big, and has a lot of neighborhoods where I wouldn't want to live without a gun in the house, preferably that I spend time cleaning outside so the criminals know I have a gun. Also, for the points Bocefish made, saying that you'll use it if you get attacked by a wolf-pack and showing that you do indeed own a four-wheeler or snowmobile should be good enough for that sort of defense.

I think, in the US, if the shooting ranges have the guns and ammo for the guns, that will satisfy those who want to be able to have fun shooting. And maybe collector licenses for those who like to collect, because I can't deny people their right to collect something they find awesome.

The thing I can say is that as a pre-ban gun owner of 10 plus guns on a regular basis, including assault rifles, I gave up all rights to gun ownership, and can now say it was just a phase and that I have no idea why i bothered collecting them. We have no predators, so no excuse for guns for defence. If I did live in the US I would probably end up with a shotgun if I was in an area with predators. As for this whole home defence thing I would be more inclined to make sure that all of the doors and windows have locks than worrying about needing a gun. Shooting people should be a last resort as they are likely to be as well armed and more awake than you are, so it won't necessarily end well.

 

[LadyLuna]

As for this whole home defence thing I would be more inclined to make sure that all of the doors and windows have locks than worrying about needing a gun. Shooting people should be a last resort as they are likely to be as well armed and more awake than you are, so it won't necessarily end well.

All very well and good, until you get the guy who's been picking locks since he was 10. Locking the windows doesn't do much good against a baseball bat, unless you happen to have windows that take that into account. If you live in an apartment, good luck with that!

 

[Bocefish]

As for this whole home defence thing I would be more inclined to make sure that all of the doors and windows have locks than worrying about needing a gun. Shooting people should be a last resort as they are likely to be as well armed and more awake than you are, so it won't necessarily end well.

All very well and good, until you get the guy who's been picking locks since he was 10. Locking the windows doesn't do much good against a baseball bat, unless you happen to have windows that take that into account. If you live in an apartment, good luck with that!

Heck, you could even live in a gated community, which basically provides a false sense of security... and still be burglarized regularly, just like the one Zimmerman lived in.

 

[Red7227]

All very well and good, until you get the guy who's been picking locks since he was 10. Locking the windows doesn't do much good against a baseball bat, unless you happen to have windows that take that into account. If you live in an apartment, good luck with that!

So buy a decent lock that can't be picked and laugh at the guy climbing through the window over the broken glass edging. We clearly have a far less motivated set of burglars compared to the US.

 

[Bocefish]

did you know there was another mass shooting earlier in the week? I notice there was no mention or thread started here about it. Why? Because only 2 people died? What body count is needed for the same outrage and news coverage?

The media didn't go apeshit covering that because the shooter was stopped by a CCW holder and when the coward saw he was being targeted he offed himself, but you will never see it on the liberal gun grabbing news companies like CNN or MSNBC!

 

[Shaun__]

did you know there was another mass shooting earlier in the week? I notice there was no mention or thread started here about it. Why? Because only 2 people died? What body count is needed for the same outrage and news coverage?

The media didn't go apeshit covering that because the shooter was stopped by a CCW holder and when the coward saw he was being targeted he offed himself, but you will never see it on the liberal gun grabbing news companies like CNN or MSNBC!

According to your video the CCW holder hid in a store and did nothing as the gunman tried to clear a jam in his gun. As soon as his gun was working the gunman killed himself. I would not be using that story to inspire people to see your viewpoint.

 

[Bocefish]

did you know there was another mass shooting earlier in the week? I notice there was no mention or thread started here about it. Why? Because only 2 people died? What body count is needed for the same outrage and news coverage?

The media didn't go apeshit covering that because the shooter was stopped by a CCW holder and when the coward saw he was being targeted he offed himself, but you will never see it on the liberal gun grabbing news companies like CNN or MSNBC!

According to your video the CCW holder hid in a store and did nothing as the gunman tried to clear a jam in his gun. As soon as his gun was working the gunman killed himself. I would not be using that story to inspire people to see your viewpoint.

Thank goodness I'm not you. Take it however you want. If you want to believe the coward offed himself because he suddenly grew a conscious and felt guilty, continue to live in la la land for all I care.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a ... 93571.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-b ... en?cid=rss

 

[Shaun__]

did you know there was another mass shooting earlier in the week? I notice there was no mention or thread started here about it. Why? Because only 2 people died? What body count is needed for the same outrage and news coverage?

The media didn't go apeshit covering that because the shooter was stopped by a CCW holder and when the coward saw he was being targeted he offed himself, but you will never see it on the liberal gun grabbing news companies like CNN or MSNBC!

According to your video the CCW holder hid in a store and did nothing as the gunman tried to clear a jam in his gun. As soon as his gun was working the gunman killed himself. I would not be using that story to inspire people to see your viewpoint.

Thank goodness I'm not you. Take it however you want. If you want to believe the coward offed himself because he suddenly grew a conscious and felt guilty, continue to live in la la land for all I care.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a ... 93571.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-b ... en?cid=rss

See if you read what you just posted the CCW holder did not do anything thing except hide. I think the gunman killed himself, because he was crazy. Crazy people do that sometimes.