Connecticut school shooting

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by James

My state doesn't allow CCW. We are the last of the Mohican's. What I am learning now is that gun laws must work if in fact nobody was carrying concealed because a sign was posted saying no weapons allowed. I can't believe that would deter someone though. The whole point of conceal carry is to not let anyone know you are packing, so why disarm yourself? I do carry sometimes, legal or not so I'm an outlaw. That doesn't bother me so much.

Bother or not, if you've gone to the trouble to obtain a permit, it would seem silly to risk losing it over not being able to read a sign. You also "cannot" carry (marked or not) into any establishments where people assemble that serve alcohol.

In other words, there is no such thing (in NC anyway) as a "legal carry" into a bar or a restaurant that serves beer and/or liquor.

I'm not making the rules here, just stating what they are.

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Bother or not, if you've gone to the trouble to obtain a permit, it would seem silly to risk losing it over not being able to read a sign. You also "cannot" carry (marked or not) into any establishments where people assemble that serve alcohol.

In other words, there is no such thing (in NC anyway) as a "legal carry" into a bar or a restaurant that serves beer and/or liquor.

I'm not making the rules here, just stating what they are.

in DE, you can"t be arrested for carrying( concealed) into an establishment (restaurant, mall, theater,etc)that prohibits it unless you make a scene when asked to leave. While it's the businesses right to prohibit weapons, it's not illegal to carry anyway. Being polite and simply leaving when asked is all that's needed. Delaware is also an oddball in that it prohibits "unlicensed carry in a public school zone" suggesting a CCW permit keeps the staties off your butt, but not the Feds

[IrishStash]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

Danny, aren't you presuming the good guy with a gun will win? Besides, if we arm guards at schools, nutjobs will simply choose a target with less resistance. Off the top of my head, the local railroad station platform can be taken out from the overpass without having to reload. Sitting ducks. How about the many nursery schools in church basements? 16-24 kids right there.

I hope you realize how ridiculous your above post is.
1. Essentially you are suggesting that we not afford our schools the highest line of protection available because "nutjobs" will simply choose a target with less resistance." I agree that "nutjobs" will always be a threat but frankly I would rather they are a threat almost anywhere but a school. (what do I know I have two you children) Seems you would prefer to use our schools as bait or a distraction from train platforms or pre-schools.
2. I think it is safe to say that between a armed, trained security guard and a post adolescent or pubescent attacker (seems to describe the most recent mass killers) we should assume a trained security officer should have the upper hand.
3. Following your logic to an extreme maybe we should disarm all institutions starting with military bases, then the kids will be safer because crazies can target military bases before they target nursery schools.

[IrishStash]

[QUOTE=09 XBones;2208082]Where the heck do you get all your misinformation? Americans won't die like that? No, Americans will suffer far more violent gun deaths that anyone in Norway ever will. In fact, you're 2000 times more likely to die from a gun in America than Norway.

So much for "more guns = less violence."

[i]By Ann Simmons Los Angeles Times Staff Writer July 23, 2011, 10:02 p.m.

The shooting rampage that left at least 85 dead at a youth camp near Oslo stunned Norway, a nation of about 4.9 million residents who are far less accustomed to gun violence than the U.S.

Authorities have described the 32-year-old man arrested in connection with the shootings, as well as a bombing in downtown Oslo that left at least seven others dead, as a far-right Christian fundamentalist. A chilling manifesto attributed to the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, that was discovered Saturday contains an image of him pointing a weapon toward the camera.

Homicide -- whether gun-related or otherwise -- is rare in Norway, which reports one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe.

A report released last year by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services examined the role of mental illness in the actions of known perpetrators there, and also noted that in more than 80% of the killings the victims were known to the assailant.

Gun ownership in Norway is common, although strict gun regulations and limitations are in place on ammunition for certain kinds of guns.

According to GunPolicy.org, an Australian university-based website, the estimated number of guns held by civilians in Norway was 1.4 million in 2007, the most recent year for which the site has such statistics for Norway.

Citing the "Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City," published by Cambridge University Press, the website give the rate of private gun ownership in Norway as 31.32 firearms per 100 people, less than the reported rate in the U.S. of 88.82 firearms per 100 people.

Five homicides committed with a gun were reported in Norway in 2005, the latest year for which the site has data confirming firearm-related murders in the country. In comparison, the U.S., which has a population more than 50 times greater, had 10,158 gun-related murders the same year, or 2,000 times that of Norway.


I find it difficult to take two simple factors (i.e. percentage of population that owns guns vs percentage of population experiencing gun violence) and draw a conclusion. Both sides of the gun debate play this card and there are many more factors to look at. While I appreciate answers that are concrete proven by statistics, I also appreciate that statistics lie through omission. What other factors come in to play with violent crime are left out of the above analysis? (be it more guns = less violence, or less guns = less violence) Poverty levels, drug saturation, education system, culture, religious mindset as a society all affect violence levels. When you cross national borders I question that the definitions of violent crime and recording procedures are of equal standards. Unfortunately the answer is much more complicated than you can graph on an x and a y axis...

[IrishStash]

Originally Posted by James

My state doesn't allow CCW. We are the last of the Mohican's. What I am learning now is that gun laws must work if in fact nobody was carrying concealed because a sign was posted saying no weapons allowed. I can't believe that would deter someone though. The whole point of conceal carry is to not let anyone know you are packing, so why disarm yourself? I do carry sometimes, legal or not so I'm an outlaw. That doesn't bother me so much.

So the important laws are not those of a democratic society but that of either a union or an extreme leftist: with exceptions to his party's view on gun control? Couldn't find the emoticon for :scratch my head:

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by IrishStash

So the important laws are not those of a democratic society but that of either a union or an extreme leftist: with exceptions to his party's view on gun control? Couldn't find the emoticon for :scratch my head:

Is this the one you were looking for?

[Uncle Salty]

Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.

http://revolutionpac.com/articles/ro...eillance-state

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by IrishStash

I hope you realize how ridiculous your above post is.
1. Essentially you are suggesting that we not afford our schools the highest line of protection available because "nutjobs" will simply choose a target with less resistance." I agree that "nutjobs" will always be a threat but frankly I would rather they are a threat almost anywhere but a school. (what do I know I have two you children) Seems you would prefer to use our schools as bait or a distraction from train platforms or pre-schools.

So, a school without an uzi packing guard is now "bait?" I guess I should have an armed guard at my house too, because I have kids at home and I'm now always here to protect them, and anything less and I'm using them as bait too?

EVer been to a school? THey're very large. Some huge. My kid's schools have multiple wings and there's no way to protect them without at least a half dozen armed guards at even the smallest building in the district.

[qute]2. I think it is safe to say that between a armed, trained security guard and a post adolescent or pubescent attacker (seems to describe the most recent mass killers) we should assume a trained security officer should have the upper hand.
[/quote]

That's if it ever came to that. The architecture of every school I've seen suggests an attacker would have 2 or 3 classrooms dead before the guard even got close enough to do anything about it.

3. Following your logic to an extreme maybe we should disarm all institutions starting with military bases, then the kids will be safer because crazies can target military bases before they target nursery schools.

Following your's, everyone should be armed everywhere, and always with the biggest, the best, and the baddest arms available lest the bad guys get the better of us.

Sounds like an insecure buffoons wet dream.

[09 XBones]

Originally Posted by IrishStash

I find it difficult to take two simple factors (i.e. percentage of population that owns guns vs percentage of population experiencing gun violence) and draw a conclusion. Both sides of the gun debate play this card and there are many more factors to look at. While I appreciate answers that are concrete proven by statistics, I also appreciate that statistics lie through omission. What other factors come in to play with violent crime are left out of the above analysis? (be it more guns = less violence, or less guns = less violence) Poverty levels, drug saturation, education system, culture, religious mindset as a society all affect violence levels. When you cross national borders I question that the definitions of violent crime and recording procedures are of equal standards. Unfortunately the answer is much more complicated than you can graph on an x and a y axis...

I understand your concern, but the fact that you're 2000 times more likely to to die a gun death in the USA than Norway (even if those statistics are skewwed) effectively negates DJW's contention that Americans won't die like those unarmed pussys in Norway did. Americans do in fact, at a rate 2000 times greater than Norwegians.

[DJW]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

I understand your concern, but the fact that you're 2000 times more likely to to die a gun death in the USA than Norway (even if those statistics are skewwed) effectively negates DJW's contention that Americans won't die like those unarmed pussys in Norway did. Americans do in fact, at a rate 2000 times greater than Norwegians.

Not at my house.

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

I understand your concern, but the fact that you're 2000 times more likely to to die a gun death in the USA than Norway (even if those statistics are skewwed) effectively negates DJW's contention that Americans won't die like those unarmed pussys in Norway did. Americans do in fact, at a rate 2000 times greater than Norwegians.

I would imagine Americans die other ways at a greater rate than Norwegians as well. Dig up some more stats and we'll judge for ya.

[IrishStash]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

I understand your concern, but the fact that you're 2000 times more likely to to die a gun death in the USA than Norway (even if those statistics are skewwed) effectively negates DJW's contention that Americans won't die like those unarmed pussys in Norway did. Americans do in fact, at a rate 2000 times greater than Norwegians.

I am not arguing that my dear friend with a difficulty to grasp multi factor equations. I am stating you can not contribute this to an excess or lack of firearms owned by citizens.

[IrishStash]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

So, a school without an uzi packing guard is now "bait?"

only in the same manner that you said if we arm schools day care facilities will become targets.

EVer been to a school? THey're very large. Some huge. My kid's schools have multiple wings and there's no way to protect them without at least a half dozen armed guards at even the smallest building in the district.

No way to strategically place manpower and link the through communications to other staff? Well coming from an obvious expert in security I am dumbfounded. I wonder if larger schools have more funding in which to pull from to accommodate their unwieldy size? Probably not huh?

[qute]2. I think it is safe to say that between a armed, trained security guard and a post adolescent or pubescent attacker (seems to describe the most recent mass killers) we should assume a trained security officer should have the upper hand.

That's if it ever came to that. The architecture of every school I've seen suggests an attacker would have 2 or 3 classrooms dead before the guard even got close enough to do anything about it.

Man, too bad trained security guards have no ability to sense problems, or seek to address issues prior to them becoming obvious. It is too bad they all sit inside a broom closet opposite any disruption and only spring into action when someone yanks their pull cord.



Following your's, (perhaps you meant yours not you ares) everyone should be armed everywhere, and always with the biggest, the best, and the baddest arms available lest the bad guys get the better of us.

Maybe not all to the extreme, but most to some extent.

Sounds like an insecure buffoons wet dream.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a socialists nightmare

[Z16Monte]

Originally Posted by 09 XBones

So, a school without an uzi packing guard is now "bait?" I guess I should have an armed guard at my house too, because I have kids at home and I'm now always here to protect them, and anything less and I'm using them as bait too?

No guard needed.http://www.examiner.com/article/arme...have-sleepover