28 killed at elementary school

[Queen K]

Let's see a 'crazed lunatic shooting up a gun show" never happens.

Implies a sense of planning, or knowledge, or self preservation does it not? What makes a person shoot up a church, or a school, or go into a work place for revenge "crazed" or "mentally ill" when they don't pick gun shows? I'd think gun shows would be as natural of a place to shoot up as anywhere if a person was TRULY mentally ill.

I think the lines, "only a madman (mentally ill) would do that" would be uttered less often if we think that they don't shoot up gun shows.

[steelrules]

1 Dead, 13 Wounded In Christmas Eve, Christmas Shootings
Chicago your total gun ban city at work.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/ ... shootings/

Yup how's that total gun ban working out for ya Chicago?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/ ... afternoon/

Gun ban cities are so much safer/ sarc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 62604.html

[goatboy]

1 Dead, 13 Wounded In Christmas Eve, Christmas Shootings
Chicago your total gun ban city at work.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/ ... shootings/

Yup how's that total gun ban working out for ya Chicago?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/ ... afternoon/

Gun ban cities are so much safer/ sarc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 62604.html

Wisconsin, open carry is legal.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/26/Wisconsin-Police-Officer-Executed-On-Christmas-Eve

The answer to less gun crime cannot, in a million years, be to introduce more guns. How does this make one bit of sense?

The US has the number 1 gun ownership rate in the world and the 10th highest death by gun rate in the world. It's not a coincidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[steelrules]

I'm sorry to hear that a female officer lost her life in the line of duty, but it has absolutly nothing to do with open carry in Wisconsin or any gun law, my guess is it was somebody she knew since she made no call for help.

All of our laws in N. America are based on the Magna Carta which expresses our God given right to self defence, this is also International law under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Now I know you're in law enforecment from your other post on castanet , so I have to ask these questions, do you not subscribe to the laws of self defence guaranteed by God the magna carta, and interational law?, do you really want innocent helpless people dying while they wait for police to show up?

Are your sensibilities so corrupted by the MSM and your training that you would prefer 20 dead children in a classroom than to see them have a fighting chance, of at least one teacher or security with one gun?

I leave you with these words that I have heard from many in Law enforcement.
"When seconds count police are only minutes away"

Yes I do believe the best deterrent to crime and these mass shootings is a well armed well educated populace.

[kibbs]

armed well educated populace.

this is a contradiction in terms.a well educated populace is the opposite unarmed.you cant learn everything from soldier of fortune.'The road to enlightenment is lightening up' Buddhist monk- leonard cohen

[theyeti]

im educated . i think gun ownership is a right . why should the army have one if i dont . are the army and police to protect us or to control us . i think if u feel they ought to protect us . then u agree owning a gun is a right . if u feel the army and plice are to be our masters and hold us under the gun . well then u r in the gun control camp .

[goatboy]

I'm sorry to hear that a female officer lost her life in the line of duty, but it has absolutly nothing to do with open carry in Wisconsin or any gun law, my guess is it was somebody she knew since she made no call for help.

All of our laws in N. America are based on the Magna Carta which expresses our God given right to self defence, this is also International law under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Now I know you're in law enforecment from your other post on castanet , so I have to ask these questions, do you not subscribe to the laws of self defence guaranteed by God the magna carta, and interational law?, do you really want innocent helpless people dying while they wait for police to show up?

Are your sensibilities so corrupted by the MSM and your training that you would prefer 20 dead children in a classroom than to see them have a fighting chance, of at least one teacher or security with one gun?

I leave you with these words that I have heard from many in Law enforcement.
"When seconds count police are only minutes away"

Yes I do believe the best deterrent to crime and these mass shootings is a well armed well educated populace.

Whether you see it or not, if the shooter in Newtown did not have access to that (or any) gun, he would not have killed that many children. I'm not saying ban all guns, but if the US adopted a Canadian style system, where guns are available but not easy to get, and have tight restrictions on them, then the culture will slowly start to change and you WILL see gun deaths slowly decrease. It will take a long time, but things will change. You only have to look at other developed countries that allow some type of gun ownership but have much lower gun deaths than the US. It's about the culture and that isn't going to change by putting more guns in peoples hands.

When you don't have access to guns you don't need armed people to protect your children.

Watch: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2012/12/24/china-school-knife-attacker-video.cnn

[797hauler]

Whether you see it or not, if the shooter in Newtown did not have access to that (or any) gun, he would not have killed that many children. I'm not saying ban all guns, but if the US adopted a Canadian style system, where guns are available but not easy to get, and have tight restrictions on them, then the culture will slowly start to change and you WILL see gun deaths slowly decrease. It will take a long time, but things will change. You only have to look at other developed countries that allow some type of gun ownership but have much lower gun deaths than the US. It's about the culture and that isn't going to change by putting more guns in peoples hands.

When you don't have access to guns you don't need armed people to protect your children.

Watch: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2012/12/24/china-school-knife-attacker-video.cnn

Its to late to start putting laws into place, I watched 4 brother last night, it had one of those "notes" throughout the movie.

it said there are 1.5 million guns registered in detriot which has a popullation of 1 million people...


I do like the US's gun buy back program though. for every gun you surrender, you get a $100-$200 grocery gift card

[Glacier]

The US has the number 1 gun ownership rate in the world and the 10th highest death by gun rate in the world. It's not a coincidence.

True. They U.S. also has the highest number of cars, and they are near the top for death by car as well. Countries with high numbers of swords or knives have numbers of deaths by knife.

The question is, does reducing the death by gun rate reduce the murder rate. Murder is just as wrong with a bomb or baseball bat as it is with a gun. If the number of guns affects the crime rate in any fashion, it is a very minor player, so it's important not to go overboard and hypocritical. They mayor of Chicago is all up in arms about putting armed guards in schools, but he sends his kids to a school with armed guards. According to some (possibly you?) these guards in schools increases death by gun. If it does, why do they allow this practice?

[steelrules]

Though you all choose to ignore or mock it, this is Canadian Law and your right of self defence.

Self Defense and the Canadian Criminal Code:
Below is how self defense is defined by the Canadian Criminal Code:

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]
Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.]
Provocation.

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]

Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]


" Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6 "

[797hauler]

hmm...interesting...I would rather be judged by 12 thats for sure, Im gonna carry that saying for alongtime to come

[GenuinelyInterested]

I just searched the CCC and found NO references to:

" Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6 "

[goatboy]

They mayor of Chicago is all up in arms about putting armed guards in schools, but he sends his kids to a school with armed guards. According to some (possibly you?) these guards in schools increases death by gun. If it does, why do they allow this practice?

Well, first I'm not saying that armed guards in schools will increase gun deaths (although. I would think the presence of any gun in a school must raise the possibility), what I am saying is that putting armed guards in every school is not the answer. Armed guards in select schools are probably there to discourage kidnapping more than anything, given that these schools probably have a high percentage of wealthy peoples kids in them.

Putting armed guards in schools does nothing to address the root problem. It's like putting a band aid on an amputation.

[goatboy]

Though you all choose to ignore or mock it, this is Canadian Law and your right of self defence.

The method of your self defense must still fall within the other laws that govern us. You cannot use a prohibited weapon against another prohibited weapon.

However, you miss the biggest point of all. Most pro-gun users in the US (yourself included) argue that you need a gun for self defense, where the truth is anything but. The chances of you ever finding yourself in a position where you would need a firearm to defend yourself is so slim to be non-existent. The chances of your own weapon being used against you (either by yourself, someone you know or a bad guy) negates any positive's that MAY ever be seen by carrying one.

[GenuinelyInterested]

Though you all choose to ignore or mock it, this is Canadian Law and your right of self defence.

The method of your self defense must still fall within the other laws that govern us. You cannot use a prohibited weapon against another prohibited weapon.

However, you miss the biggest point of all. Most pro-gun users in the US (yourself included) argue that you need a gun for self defense, where the truth is anything but. The chances of you ever finding yourself in a position where you would need a firearm to defend yourself is so slim to be non-existent. The chances of your own weapon being used against you (either by yourself, someone you know or a bad guy) negates any positive's that MAY ever be seen by carrying one.

In other words....IF you bring a gun to a knife fight, you may survive, but you will not win in court. AND it does not even matter that the assailant brought the knife to your house, in the middle of the night and threatened you with it. IF you shoot him, you lose.