The first thing my wife, Jean, said to me yesterday afternoon, when she got home, was: "Turn on the BREAKING NEWS I just heard on the car radio.

In summary, here is what I heard on my favourite TV News Channels:
Within minutes this news was on the media of the world.
====================================
Our Response to School Shootings?

Generally speaking, what DO we usually feel when we witness, or hear about, such tragic and unimaginable events?

Have you, personally, ever had, been through, or witnessed an event such as this? Would you rather not talk about it? Or would you like to talk about it?

Jonathan Kay--one of my favourite columnists at the National Post said that "our response will forever be a mix of agony and impotence." What is yours?

www.nationalpost.com/jonathankay

U.S. crime statistics 1960-2011
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Mass shooting happens every 5 days in America
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ing-nation.html

Murder rates around the world 2004-2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc

Five most dangerous countries on Earth
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/travel/news-five-most-lawless-lands-earth?image=0

"Society moves on, he says (- Criminologist James Allen Fox-) because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."
http://news.yahoo.com/no-rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-185700637.html

God must have a plan, eh Rev?

It's tragic that these things happen.

every time something like this happens it makes me wonder
why it happened.

I wont talk about the people involved or their loss.
I will say that their loss must be overwhelming.
and only time will heal their pain.

Everything is connected.

Know thyself....

If the price of individual freedom leads to the death of these little children-- then that price is too high.

I cannot understand the almost religious fervour attached to a few words written in the 18th Century, responding to their times and conditions, and totally irrelevant to our own lives.

Little children are dying every week already because people find it so easy, in the US, to find guns to kill them with.

If this incident with 26 people dead does not make people agitate for gun control, nothing will. And sadly I don't think it will.

WHY AMERICANS LOVE THEIR GUNS

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/03/20123277115372628.html

This article contains an excellent video and a lot of useful information. I find the comment about Switzerland very interesting. Maybe an American version of this could be designed, in harmony with the second amendment, that would be acceptable to those who want guns and who support the position of the NRA.

Ellis

The American Peoples Guns are our deterrent that is to be used
in the event that we need to overthrow our government.

its in our constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

to remove these right's is to allow our government to become
our dictators.

when it is we the People who dictate to our government.

supposedly , through our political system.

hopefully we will never have the need to overthrow our government , but I can say this , there would be alot of
difficulty in taking arms from our citizens.

not only are our guns to protect us from our government
our guns these days might just be the major reason we have not been invaded by a foreign nation.

if the government chose to allow china ( for instance ) to
invade our soil with their army , the first thing that would happen is our military would join the people in our defense.

we would no longer have a military but we would have all the weapons.

we already have more weapons than our military has.

giving up our weapons would be like getting in the nazi cattle cars.

and we know it.

its sad that children are being killed using guns.

and I knew that the media would attempt to take advantage
of this tragedy to outlaw guns.

the problem is not our guns , its how our guns are managed.

if a child cannot get a gun , then that child cannot shoot
a gun.

I will refer to my earlier post and say that when your quote was written, Paul, in the context of the time, this was probably a valid idea. The colonists who were now the leaders of the new nation were terrified that the Europeans (read British) would return and seize power. So the fear was not against their neighbour, or their leaders but against a possible foreign power. At that time this was a fair assumption so they suggested that an armed civilian militia was a good idea.

The guns of the time were as lethal as today if you were hit by a bullet from one, but they were slow to load, hard to aim with and were only able, at best to manage to fire about 3 or 4 bullets a minute. I know nothing about guns but even I know that now, with an automatic weapon a non-stop spray of bullets is possible. Random firing produces horrific death tolls- such as 20 6-year-olds. No civilian needs those weapons.

Now the government thing. A democratic government is elected by the people to represent them. Sometimes the party you favour is not elected by the majority, and this is the strength of the system. Next time there is an election they can be peacefully removed--- no rioting, no need for guns etc,. Perhaps what is needed is a look at why it is that America seems to have lost faith in democracy, and does not trust the system to provide an accurate representation of the population's wishes. The government is 'you', it represents you and if people do not vote how can there be fair government.

Reaching for the gun and starting a war is not stable government, and countries where that happens are not ones where anyone wants to live. Safety does not lie in a gun --- it lies in strong representation, and clear, achievable goals, and the concept of freedom has to allow for many opinions to flourish. Shooting people does not allow for any of that and eventually everyone's reactions are blunted, and children carry the cost.

And of course the fact that we are separated by wide stretches of ocean on both the East and West from other countries. It would have been hard for anybody to invade us across an ocean. If you have to transport all of your men and materials across an ocean then invasion is a problem. And then we got to big and rich for anybody to try.

The War of 1812 hardly counts. Britain did invade, but they didn't really try to occupy the country, and they were also fighting Napoleon Bonaparte at the same time.

Bill Gill

I don't think it's necessarily a problem with too many guns.
Canada has 0.34 guns per person and 9 people per square kilometer.
USA has 0.89 guns per person and 84 people per square kilometer.

I think it's proximity. If I were to wander around the USA for any length of time... Being surrounded all the time, bumping and jostling... I'd wanna shoot someone too.

Regardless, what pisses me off the most; is the blame game.

Why blame the shooter, when you can blame his mother? Or his 'disorder'? Or his religion? Or any number of totally bull$#!t excuses.

Blaming guns for all the deaths, is like blaming printing presses for all the books.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Sometimes people kill with no reason. Sometimes people are hired, trained, and sent to other countries to kill innocent people. A killer is a killer is a killer.

Canadian here with 5 guns to my name. Never killed a human being.

Also, 1812 does count, 'cause the white house burned. Brits did very little, but them metis and natives, they went sick house on the americans. That portion is usually left out of history books, as it tends to be a bit gory, and psychotic. Also, they didn't use very many guns in the invasion. They crept in the night, and slaughtered men women and children as they slept.

I don't think USA has been invaded for one simple reason: Where's the profit?
USA has pretty well nothing other countries desire. Even the steel industry that was world renowned is dead. Made in america is pretty well a joke to the rest of the world. If you're not into being a corporate shill making 10x what you're worth, there's not much draw. Canada is much the same, but at least we have raw resources.
There ya go, why invade USA, when you can invade Canada?
More space, more resources, less resistance... crap. I for one welcome our new asian overlords...

I like this guy...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/12/16/searching-for-hard-data-on-guns-and-violence/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are tobacco, alcohol, medical malpractice, traffic and firearms. According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BettyJean Downing Kling: The Majority United

Doctors : * Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

1-The number of physicians in the United States is 700,000.
2-Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
3-Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Guns: *Statistics courtesy of FBI

1-The number of gun owners in the United States is 80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million)
2-The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
3-The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

Statistically: Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

http://freemenow.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/guns-vs-doctors-hammers-knives-bats-and-fists/


Statistically speaking... Going after the guns is starting at the bottom of the list.
If we work our way up, we will need to get rid of, or address, the problems of Automobiles as a killer greater than guns, then go after the doctors, then alchohol, and finally tobacco.

IF we get rid of all of those things we should be just fine.

TT , that was to the point.

in the State of Georgia in the U.S. there is a city that has

mandatory gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

25 years since the gun law was imposed , just one murder (2003).

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/




we have been building prison after prison in the U.S. and
prisons are becoming an industry , taking guns away would ensure the profitability of this new industry the above clearly shows that.

if it were mandated that every household in the U.S. were required
to have a gun , the crime rate in the U.S. would tumble.

I can see how this might also reduce the number of
doctors accidents per year.

given time.


Ellis, its illegal to own an automatic weapon in the U.S.
because they waste valuable bullets and bullets are expensive
so as a economic measure we do not allow the general public to
purchase automatic weapons , this has resulted in better aiming
accuracy.

we can get a license to own and operate automatic weapons
but they are very expensive and once again waste valuable bullets
and aiming time.

we are focusing on a standoffish approach to defense vs close
quarter combat where the enemy must consider every tree or rock or hole in the ground to be a threat to their being.


they can waste all the bullets they want
with automatic weapons, we'll dig the lead out of the trees.

I believe that in a close quarters combat situation
a couple of shotgun's with tactically shortened barrel's would be the preferred weapon of choice.

unless in a selective targeting scenario where the targeting of citizens must be avoided.

as the goal would be to quickly and effectively remove combatants from the immediate area , such as
building's , house's, businesses , encampment's , of course the element
of surprise would also come into play.

needless to say the overwatch ( sniper ) units would clean up any exposed combatant's that pose an immediate threat to
the friendly force's.

I know it seem's harsh to think this way to some people , but
to other's it is the only way we should think.

the history of the world give's proof that the best defense
is the best offence.

and our best defense is our citizens and their weapons.

England's gun control = more crime

crime has almost doubled in England since gun control was initiated.

they must also have a large prison industry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

It’s interesting that the response to the shooting has taken the form of a discussion about gun control.

Guns don’t kill people! People kill people!

Perhaps we should be asking what is happening in society that leads to tragic events like this.

What are our leaders (political, social and religious) doing.
What are our teachers doing?
Above all, what are our parents doing?

Whatever it is we are doing it is having some dreadful results.

Whatever we are doing is much the same as that which the generations before us did.

It’s time we made a change, and we are unlikely to make that change by blaming guns, knives, alcohol, video games or even money for the dreadful things that people do to people.

Neohippy, I apologise! Thanks to an interruption, I had missed part of your post, only on re-reading it did I realise I had used your "guns don't kill people......"

What is it they say about great minds?

Paul, using up to date stats might be better than dredging up 2009 figures which the Daily Mail was using as right wing propaganda.

The latest quarterly crime statistics for England and Wales for the period to September 2011 were released in January 2012.

Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

THANKS, EVERYONE! FOR THE VERY VALUABLE AND INTERESTING DIALOGUE.

My personal experience with guns?

I grew up in the 1930's, in a family of 8--a father, mother, 3 girls and 5 boys (I was #5). We owned two guns. One gun was a single-barreled shot gun. The other was a single-barreled 22 rifle.

Because of my gun-shy nature, I never became hunter. I left that to my older brothers. But I enjoyed going on hunting trips with them. My job? I helped with the cleaning of the guns and of the game.

Of course, in NL there was lots of fish, but because grassland was scarce, fresh meat was very expensive. Few, if any, had refrigeration. It was because of this that guns were needed to quickly kill any domestic animals and birds being raised--any goats, sheep, pigs, geese, ducks and chicken. A few had cattle--and getting them ready for the table. In addition, there was wild game--Moose, Caribou, deer, seals, rabbits and birds. Thus guns were essential to help maintain our very modest standard of living on www.bellisland.net

NOT ONE MURDER IN ALL ITS HISTORY
Interestingly, while I lived on BI, the population got to be at least 10,000. This including about 2,100 rough and ready iron-ore miners. But, though there was at least one gun in every family, as of now, not one death on BI was caused by a gun-related murder.

However, over the years there have been gun, knife, snowmobile and rock-related accidents. One woman I knew lost an arm in a gun-related accident, in her own kitchen; a close contemporary of mine was killed by a rock that fell from a cliff we all climbed at one time or another; a young man died of an accidental, self-inflicted gun accident while mooring his boat; a nephew of mine (18) lost his life when he accidentally fell on a knife. Carelessly, in the process of cleaning out his father's boat, perhaps without thinking, he put the knife in his pocket. And another nephew lost his life driving his new snowmobile, one which he had just received as a Christmas present.

Me? Of course, I am still here. But I have had several close calls over the years. One happened when I was about 11, or 12 at the most. One that I remember, clearly, happened on a beautiful day in the Spring of 1942 when--not long after I had heard the loud squeals of a neighbour's pig--I was in the process of putting some whitewash on our fence.

It was not long after that I heard the familiar CRACK! CRACK! CRACK! ... sounds of a 22 rifle. Within inches from my head the slugs of several 22 bullets hit the fence with a ZIP!ZIP!ZIP! and a THUD!THUD!THUD!... When I turned around, the source of the sounds soon became clear to me. They came from the rifle of our neighbour, Jack, who lived just up the hill from our house. Generally speaking, the Kings thought of Jack, a widower, as a good neighbour.

Immediately, I dropped what I was doing, went in the house and told my father and brother, who happened to be home, what had happened. They came out and examined the fence and found several slugs. Then the three of us paid Jack a visit--minus recriminating attack.

Because by now Jack had sobered up, somewhat, my father and brother had no problem getting Jack to understand that the shots had come from his rifle and how fortunate it was that a tragedy had been avoided.

Jack readily told us what happened. Also, he openly admitted, and apologized, that he and his friend had both had more that one drink when, with the help of a 22 rifle and knife, they killed the pig, put it in scalding-hot water and then hung it on a tripod in the backyard to finish draining the blood.

It was the smell of blood that triggered the attention of some of the cats in the neighbourhood. And it was the cats that Jack had in mind when he pulled the trigger.

The good news is: The cats survived; I survived; pork was shared; apologies were made; lessons were learned and the neighbourhood was kept in tact.

So in essence you started this thread to talk about personal memories.... 'Cause the killing of children inspires you to talk about yourself?

There has been a lot of discussion about the fact that in Switzerland every male has to have a gun and maintain it (not the women though, I wonder why not?) Contrary to many opinions Switzerland does have gun murders, but a remarkably small number considering that every household has at least one gun, with bullets.

You were suggesting that there is something else at play here, and I think that it is the system of referenda that they have in Switzerland about controversial new changes to the law. Each voter is canvassed for his (and her) opinion and the result is acted upon in Parliament. Each person then has a feeling of ownership of the legislation, the members of government are there to represent the will of the electorate, and the electorate is consulted as each opinion is collated.

I feel many in America feel disengaged from their governments and devoid of any power. This is not supposed to happen in a democracy. The people are supposed to be the power.

Maybe the answer is to engage people in their own future as the Swiss do with their referenda. A place to start may be to have a new uniform method of actually electing the representatives--- either all go on-line or all use pencil or paper---- or some arcane method such as using a hole-punch. Just make sure it is uniform. Have the elections monitored centrally so local people with an interest in the results cannot influence them. I'm sure there are a lot of things which could make people feel more enfranchised and involved. Also every citizen should ensure they vote.

This may seen to be a long way from the deaths of those little boys and girls, not to mention the murdered people from the other 36 mass shootings there have been in the US. I do not think all those killers were insane, but I do think they were disengaged with their society. And one way to feel better is to go and shoot things, with a gun.

Guns may not kill people, but people with guns sure do.

Keep thinking, Ellis. Then you say, Ellis, may I suggest we all need to rethink the meaning of 'insanity'. Take a look at the generally accepted meaning of the term. Ellis, IMO, I have not met any human being, including myself, who has never been a bit insane, now and then.

In addition, over the years, I have met quite a number who were civilly and/or criminally insane.

The challenge is:
1. If I ever get to the stage that I become a nuisance to myself, family, neighbours and to others around me and if I break any of the civil laws, does this not give others the right to sue me? There may be others, who just want to be good Samaritans, who ought to have the right to interfere, and help decide what happens to me, don't you think?

We need to have a dialogue about questions like this.

2. If I break any of the criminal laws, does this not automatically give the servants of the state, ones we call the police, the lawful right, even obligation, to arrest me?

3. What about citizens arrest? Interestingly [I once actually performed such an arrest. It prevented a fire in the virtual making and benefited the female "criminal" greatly.]

In another case--in the presence of two policemen--a "criminal"--who was obviously insane--at my request, gave me the knife (I still have the knife) with which he said he intended to kill himself and/or "ANY GD COP WHO TRIES TO STOP ME".]

You are probably correct about my state of mind at times Rev, but I think that your definition (1) describes the young killer fairly accurately.

I read an interesting and rather thought provoking point this morning:-

If that famous saying, "Guns don't kill, people do" is correct, is not its logical conclusion that we should encourage Iran, North Korea et al to stock up on nuclear weapons because "Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do"?

now that's a side splitter , LOL

and I bet the men have the gun's locked away really good.

I think its what we perceive them to be.

if insanity could be applied to a nation , certainly these
nation's that you have mentioned would not be described as
insane as these nation's do nothing that we perceive as insane.

do they?

even in the U.S. the criminally insane can not
legally buy / own gun's.

maybe were just extending our rules to them if we perceive them to be insane.

There is a problem in the idea that psychiatry cannot cure anything and is not seen as a science. Who then gets to determine what insanity is and apply the label other than a group of people given the authority because the majority needs and accepts someone to divide the social misfits from the democratically accepted standard?

The pot calling the kettle black...

You surprise me Ellis, your logic is usually better than that. I would not argue with: "Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do"; but encouraging any nation to stock up on nuclear weapons certainly does not follow logically from that. Nor does encouraging people to arm themselves to the teeth with guns necessarily follow logically from the first statement.

TT, let's not confuse the ability (or otherwise) to cure with the authority to attach labels.

I think I liked the totally flawed common sense as well as the flawed logic, Bill S. It is of course beyond stupid to suggest that our planet needs more nuclear armed countries, as it is beyond stupid to argue that guns don't kill people. It really is sophistry of the worst sort.

I have just been reading an on-line discussion that is seriously pondering suggestions that to make schools safe in America there should be armed guards at each school, not just one, but two, in case one gets shot. Others suggest that every teacher should learn to use a gun, and there should be a gun locker in each class-room. Grade 5 and 6 and above ( and the suggestion was for the BOYS ONLY to do this) should do drills to enable them to charge a gun man. I am not making this up. These are serious and sincere people grappling with a dreadful situation.

Somehow arming North Korea doesn't look so horrific after all. (Sorry that was flippant- but I am a bit upset. We all know this is not going to be the last incident).

I don't think there is any doubt that anything dysfunctional can be cured. However finding the cure also means finding the cause.

As long as people are consumed by self image and the need to make comparisons, people will find ways to fend off those that are seemingly a threat to their position. Those with low self esteem will find themselves abandoned by those who are impressed with themselves and their titles as they go about their lives preaching of their success and their methods for the lessor peoples to pull themselves up, while maintaining the reality that worth is an outward presentation of talents and abilities.

Psychiatrists admit, they don't cure people. They study and treat according to their own beliefs and best ideas.
They are absorbed into the very system that teaches their children to measure life and worthiness with success in the appearances of materialism.

We are graded as children, taught to compare and measure worthiness according to social standards, and our society supports those who have been taught to accept their weaknesses and limitations as prescribed by generations of programmed thinking.

Agreed, in general, but the word "accept" might be taken to imply that we have learned to live with those weaknesses in such a way as to sustain no damage from them. Manifestly, such a situation would be quite rare.

Follow the trail from TT's comment and the primary cause of most - if not all - dysfunctional behaviour might be revealed.

Not what I think is the case. Acceptable ignorance due to the idea that the majority rules (democracy) seems to instill a beleif in helplessness in anyone that feels they can't change the world around them.
It's becoming more of an issue. Kids have committed suicide over the comments made on a facebook page. Kids create cliques and they hurl judgments at anyone who does not fit into their personal and idealistic realm of normalcy.
It's a disorder that is rapidly spreading into the adult community. Anyone not fitting a particular profile is judged and committed to the category of undesirable and a potential troublemaker.

Remember the Milgram experiement?

Interesting stats that may be relevant to this thread, but also link to Paul's comments in another thread.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/08-numbers-majority-minors-face-mental-illness#.UNOJsXf9Gtw

"82.5: The percentage of children and young adults who exhibit significant symptoms of mental illness at some point between the ages of 9 and 21. The startling statistic comes from a collaborative study conducted by Duke University and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, which surveyed 1,420 children over 12 years beginning in 1993. Investigators checked in up to nine times to test for anxiety, depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive 
disorder, and more. The results: 61.1 percent met the diagnostic criteria for mental illness during at least one appointment, while an additional 21.4 percent had problems bad enough to interfere with school, social life, or family relations. Just like physical disease, mental illness affects nearly all of us at times, says study coauthor and psychologist E. Jane Costello. “We have to destigmatize the idea of mental disorder,” she says. “We shouldn’t be surprised that the brain has problems, just like the rest of the body.”"

…….and here’s another!

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/jan-feb/39-firestorm-over-new-psychiatry-bible#.UNORGHf9Gtx

Revising the DSM is always contentious because there are few objective tests and often no physical signs of mental disorders. But the debates surrounding the upcoming DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, were particularly intense. The changes "will dramatically raise the rates of mental disorders and mislabel normal people as psychiatrically sick," wrote psychiatrist Allen Frances, who was chairman of the committee for the previous edition.