In response to kelvana33's comment:

That's guns per resident.  Many have more than one.  I have two.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Ahhh, then i read it wrong, (shocker, it's a wonder I dont fall down more these days)  my apologies chowda....Funny, I had someone over my house that I hadnt seen in a while recently...i was showing him my house and he saw my safes which were empty. He asked me where i keep them, i told him since I have 4 small kids i took them out and keep them at my work. While I consider myself responsible in this regard, working all the hours I do, i know with none of them in my residence there is 100% chance of an accident not happening now...One will never be in my house again unless it's on me stopping home while working...he asked me about protection for my family...i then pointed to my two German Shepherds...there is no better way to deter soemone from breaking into your residence than two big fury german heads looking out the window.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

Thx for having my back NAS! lol

Reading the comments above makes me think...............the gun culture is definitely different up here. Been around a while and have met only one person with more then gun. He was a collector. The rest were avid hunters. 

Maybe I don't get out enough.

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

I have a Mossberg pump that I bought when I first decided to own a gun.  Recently I picked up a Ruger SR40 because it's easier to keep in the nightstand than a 12 gauge.  I could have traded in the Mossberg, but I would have only gotten half price for it, so I decided to keep it. Neither have been fired outside of the range or the sand pits/quarries and I pray it stays that way.

In response to islamorada's comment:

I don't think anyones saying the nation is "morally corrupt'.  not me anyway, and I was one who talked morality in an earlier post.  "corrupt" is a pretty strong word, and really exagerates my point.  

in the context of this thread, we have most definately regressed from the 30's.    

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

NAS, for the record, the NYTimes reports the weapon used in the shooting was in fact an AR 15 w/high-capacity magazine.  Not 2 handguns.

isla - I think the country's most definately lost it's moral compass.  Mandating abortion, green lighting homosexual marriage, legalizing marijuana, depravity on basic cable, Sodom and Gomorah with the click of a button..

 

Freedom also means responsibility.  Freedom without accountability is anarchy.  And I think that's where our countries compass points too, right now.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

NAS, these are sincere genuine questions to help me understand.

1) How does a citizen go about buying a gun in your state ? What are the laws ? Are there many gun shops ?
 
2) And on a personal level why do you feel the need to own a gun ? Do you feel that unsafe in your own neighbourhood ?........especially to have one on a nightstand.

This is not an interrogation and obviously you can answer or not but I've never lived in any kind of environment where I feel I the need to protect myself...........and I don't think I would if I felt this way.

I agree the word "corrupt" is overstated.  Nonetheless I will state that the decades through out the US history have plenty of examples of corrupt behavior...."Bleeding Kansas" in 1856 for instance.  My point is the moral argument is not entirely correct.  If one used the argument that "individual rights" as opposed to "conformity" has been over emphazed by the courts and in general government since the 1960s then that is a better argument.  I don't necessarily agree individual rights as a root of entitilement but.....

I will say this as I have a very good friend who is a principal, and many more as teachers, and I can say that schools are not safe.  They should be safer than post offices for instance or even investment firms.  Most administrators and state school officials do not have a clear understanding of how to protect our children.  Parents need to demand results, if the fire departments through out the country are trained for terrorist actions then why not do the same for schools.  My son in law is a Boston fireman.  

Speaking of parenting, I raised my children with hugs and care.  Callahan (D&C) this morning stated that Tim Tebow had posted on Twitter the pictures of all the children who passed away during this crime.  Callahan stated correctly, how can any one not break down and cry.  Enough is enough as many are saying.  

 

In response to stevegm's comment:

In response to islamorada's comment:
[QUOTE]

I agree the word "corrupt" is overstated.  Nonetheless I will state that the decades through out the US history have plenty of examples of corrupt behavior...."Bleeding Kansas" in 1856 for instance.  My point is the moral argument is not entirely correct.  If one used the argument that "individual rights" as opposed to "conformity" has been over emphazed by the courts and in general government since the 1960s then that is a better argument.  I don't necessarily agree individual rights as a root of entitilement but.....

I will say this as I have a very good friend who is a principal, and many more as teachers, and I can say that schools are not safe.  They should be safer than post offices for instance or even investment firms.  Most administrators and state school officials do not have a clear understanding of how to protect our children.  Parents need to demand results, if the fire departments through out the country are trained for terrorist actions then why not do the same for schools.  My son in law is a Boston fireman.  

Speaking of parenting, I raised my children with hugs and care.  Callahan (D&C) this morning stated that Tim Tebow had posted on Twitter the pictures of all the children who passed away during this crime.  Callahan stated correctly, how can any one not break down and cry.  Enough is enough as many are saying.  

Quote

 

 As much as I hate the word "conformity", we may have some common ground here.  Conformity reeks of close mindedness, submission, and intolerance.  I don't believe a more balanced approach to right and wrong leads to a lynch mob mentality or that it should thwart free thinking. 

The "moral argument isn't meant to be "entirely correct" either.  Just one element to a very complex problem.  I too raised my kids with "hugs and care", but hopefully, they were taught that there are consequences to many decisions, and ultimately, it was them, not the encompassing world that dictated the quality and richness of their lives.

I don't see how anyone could argue "enough is enough".  I just feel our collective sense of acceptability as a nation has to redefined first.  Guns, video games, TV, security...sure they all probably play some small part.  The lobbyists, and politicians though....those looking for a quick magical solution will ensure failure.  These kinds of things have increased dramatically over the last generation or so.  It'll take some really heavy lifting to reverse the trend. 

I've seen a number of people saying that schools should employee war vets to protect our schools. Or just have a few reservists stay at the schools during normal hours. I can't see any vet who is unemployed turning down the opportunity to protect the children of the country they fought to protect. Just a thought.

I also read on the Libertarian party page that the average number of deaths in mass killings stopped by police is roughly 14.3 whereas the number of deaths in mass killings stopped by armed civilians is generally around 2.33. This is because of the lag of response time between first shot fired and police arrival.

They also had this posted on their site.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/halt-the-massacre-of-innocent-children-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in

There is a definitive link between armed civilians and stopping would-be shooters in these types of situations.

In response to lambda13's comment:

The first person who was murdered the other day, went to great lengths to be armed with a huge cache of weapons for her protection.  Trouble is, her son stole those weapons to murder her and then slaughter 20 young children.  So that didn't work out very well, for her or anyone else.  Mrs. Lanza was the "armed civilian" in this case.

And it plays out that way a lot, unfortunately.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

good points.  anyone who thinks this can be narrowed down to an "issue" or two might be mistaken.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

He did it with two handguns.

Not true. Medical examiner said 'all shot with the long gun.'

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

That is a completely flawed argument. No she was not the "armed civilian." Fletch you're a smart guy and I respect your opinion on here, but you have to see the flaw in that argument. His mother was ambushed in her own home by her son. She was not walking through her local grocery store and a stranger tried to rob the place and she intervened. What she was, was a licensed gun owner, nothing more. She didn't have a shootout with her son. She didn't have a pistol in her hand when she died. She was executed.

 

That is a completely flawed argument. No she was not the "armed civilian." Fletch you're a smart guy and I respect your opinion on here, but you have to see the flaw in that argument. His mother was ambushed in her own home by her son. She was not walking through her local grocery store and a stranger tried to rob the place and she intervened. What she was, was a licensed gun owner, nothing more. She didn't have a shootout with her son. She didn't have a pistol in her hand when she died. She was executed.

[/QUOTE]

But that's the reality of owning those weapons -- they might serve for your protection, or they might end up being used for something else...

My point Lambda, is that this happens a lot when people surround themselves with weapons.  You seem to be implying that if you have armed citizens, their weapons only matter in situations where they can protect themselves, like at the grocery store.  The reality is often more like the fallout for Mrs Lanza in Connecticut.  She armed herself for protection, but those weapons need to be stored somewhere and she can't always be awake and in possession of them.  They may provide some protection, but they also provide a significant liability when a mentally-ill member of the household can gain access to them.

So her intention to protect herself and be an armed citizen went horribly awry, when her son stole her unsecured weapons, murdered her, and then murdered 26 other innocent people.  

You're welcome to disagree with me and I'll respect your viewpoint, but I would argue that the Connecticut massacre is a horrible case for the 'armed citizen' argument, since the only armed citizen involved literally provided the murder weapon for 27 people to be killed, without that little coward even having to get his hands dirty.  In that particular case, we would be much, much better off if Mrs. Lanza did NOT have a a cache of weapons for her protection.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:
[/QUOTE]

But that's the reality of owning those weapons -- they might serve for your protection, or they might end up being used for something else...

My point Lambda, is that this happens a lot when people surround themselves with weapons.  You seem to be implying that if you have armed citizens, their weapons only matter in situations where they can protect themselves, like at the grocery store.  The reality is often more like the fallout for Mrs Lanza in Connecticut.  She armed herself for protection, but those weapons need to be stored somewhere and she can't always awake and in possession of them.  They may provide some protection, but they also provide a significant liability when a mentally-ill member of the household can gain access to them.

So her intention to protect herself and be an armed citizen went horribly awry, when her son stole her unsecured weapons, murdered her, and then murdered 26 other innocent people.  

You're welcome to disagree with me and I'll respect your viewpoint, but I would argue that the Connecticut massacre is a horrible case for the 'armed citizen' argument, since the only armed citizen involved literally provided the murder weapon for 27 people to be killed, without that little coward even having to get his hands dirty.  In that particular case, we would be much, much better off if Mrs. Lanza did NOT have a a cache of weapons for her protection.

[/QUOTE]


I think you're confusing the use of gun owner and armed citizen. In this case Mrs. Lanza was a gun owner. She was not an armed citizen that was able to respond to a perceived threat. From all reports she was a target or sport shooter. She did not have those weapons for protection.

Say for example say I owned a gun, I currently do not, but for arguments we'll say I do. I'm out with friends and someone opens fire at a bar. From my understanding of what you're saying is that I'm an armed citizen. From what I'm saying is that I'm an armed citizen if I'm carrying that weapon at the time its needed for protection.

With that being said I absolutely agree that people need to be more responsible with how weapons are stored. I think that only licensed family members or people in general should have any type of access to those weapons. If a gun is used in a crime and it was obtained because someone was irresponsible with the storage of their weapon, they should be held accountable in some way for allowing the weapon to be taken. Obviously there needs to be some burden of proof showing they were negligent, but something should be done about gun storage.

One last point I'd like to make is that generally in these types of events the shooters have planned out their actions in advance of carrying them out. The plan comes together over a few days, weeks, or even months. If this kid didn't have access to his mother's weapons it is entirely possible he may have made other arrangements to acquire firearms and carry out this tragedy. It is an unfortunate reality that people that want to do terrible things will find a way to do it. I think this happened the same day, but in China some guy ran around with a knife and cut 22 school children. I hate to say it but the best way to prevent these types of events is to have someone in a place to stop them as they unfold. There's no tell-tale signs that someone is going to go on a shooting spree.

The elementary school at the end of my block was on lockdown for five hours this week after an imminent threat was seen towards one of the staff as well as the students. The investigation is still ongoing. That just made this register even more, hitting close to home. I'd also like to note that as most of you know I live in Canada - this chaos is not solely an American problem. That said, the wife is in Georgia for the holidays, and whether it's a justified feeling or not, I'm at the point now where I feel more comfortable and have a greater peace of mind about her safety when she's on this side of the border. (and, just for context, I'm a gun owner - grew up in rural Manitoba and my Dad taught me how to hunt, still have my rifle in a lockbox, though I have no ammunition as it has been a while since I last hunted.)

Lamda, there were no fatalities in the China incident - partly because the guy had a knife, not a gun.

The referencing of "reeks" is correct.  I only say to clarify that religions and schools are  places of conformity.  Spirituality (not necesarrily religion) and education of citizens (Constituional rights) are postive aspects of conformity.  Corporate systemics is a basic form of conformity, somebody has to be the "yes" person.  Back to my point is the growing size of the federal government to promote the general welfare does build in the citizenship a sense of entitlement.  Some then think government as a care taker only, personally I rather see local schools (teaching human spirituality), religion, local and participatory citizenship be given more responsibility as care givers.  The national government bureaucracy of 300million people does not do a good job.  Stop the pendulum swing of entitlement in other words.  It may not be the case in this horrible crime, but a citizenship thinking all can be taken care of by the nationl/federal governemnt is a root of a larger problem in our society IMNSHO.  Oddly enough though the solution to protecting the schools from Newtown onto the future must come from the federal government.  Strangely true.  Anyway I am glad I read all the posters opinions.  It helps form my own.  Cheers

 

In response to stevegm's comment:
[QUOTE]

 As much as I hate the word "conformity", we may have some common ground here.  Conformity reeks of close mindedness, submission, and intolerance.  I don't believe a more balanced approach to right and wrong leads to a lynch mob mentality or that it should thwart free thinking. 

The "moral argument isn't meant to be "entirely correct" either.  Just one element to a very complex problem.  I too raised my kids with "hugs and care", but hopefully, they were taught that there are consequences to many decisions, and ultimately, it was them, not the encompassing world that dictated the quality and richness of their lives.

I don't see how anyone could argue "enough is enough".  I just feel our collective sense of acceptability as a nation has to redefined first.  Guns, video games, TV, security...sure they all probably play some small part.  The lobbyists, and politicians though....those looking for a quick magical solution will ensure failure.  These kinds of things have increased dramatically over the last generation or so.  It'll take some really heavy lifting to reverse the trend. 

newsflash... the world is not a safe place to live, never has been. however, it became exponentially more dangerous when the gun was invented, and made available to the masses. that bell cannot be unrung.  a child can be a killer. a mentally handicapped person can be a killer. an elderly person in a wheelchair can be a killer. the fact is, guns make anyone who can raise their arm and move their finger a half inch, a killer. i have no idea what the solution to the problem is, but there is one thing i am certain about- adding MORE guns makes the problem worse.  less guns= less potential killers.

 

In response to red75's comment:

Correct, but it still happened. I'm saying harm can be done regardless the weapon. It just depends on how crazy the person is. It also has everything to do with he was stopped rather quickly as he was at the entrance.

In response to lambda13's comment:

The intent alone is disturbing. I've chosen, instead of focusing on the gun issues, the reasoning etc..I'll let the powers that be handle that stuff, to go and read about the victims..Very sad, but I'd rather focus on them than the POS who did this. I want to remember them, I hope you all take a few minutes and do the same.

you can defend yourself in a knife attack. kinda hard to defend yourself from a bullet headed in your direction at the speed of sound. had that lunatic been using a gun, undoubtedly, many people would have lost their lives. get it?