Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

Perhaps one reason 'tactical' is fashionable now is that we have been involved in active war for the last going on twelve years. Because of that gear perceived to be military may have a certain cachet. Gear perceived to be associated with 'spec ops' would have even more since for most of that time the media has been in love with spec ops and constantly highlight spec ops this and spec ops that.

[davidbfpo]

Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?

Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?

[carl]

Just a thought. Given that some, if not the majority of shooters wear "ninja" or "men in black" or tactical gear do those who do not commit suicide. Is this an attempt to confuse and lessen their chances of being shot by the police or others who respond?

I don't think so. The first guys on the scene will be uniformed patrol officers, who look like uniformed patrol officers. Swat guys would almost certainly show up later and with plenty of radio notice that they were coming. Even if in the very unlikely event that a costumed up Swat guy was around quickly he would radio the hell out his location, what he was wearing etc.

At any rate if they did incorporate that into their planning, that would pre-suppose that they wanted to give themselves an advantage in a fight. They don't want to fight. They want to kill.

Personally I do find the idea of arming school teachers - well different. Mindful that a good number IIRC of children each year misuse parental guns and kill others or wound themselves, what will happen when a child at school finds a teachers gun?

It wouldn't be arming teachers. It would be allowing teachers who choose to do so to arm themselves. Basically you would be going back to what was before all the 'weapons free zones' nonsense took hold. If a teacher wanted to keep a weapon in the car they would be free to do so, as they were.

If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.

[slapout9]

If they wanted to keep one in the school, schools could implement rules to make sure the weapons were secured until needed. The airlines do the same sort of thing right now. Volunteer pilots who meet the qualifications can carry a pistol on the airplane. They have to store it in a certain and secure way. You could do the same sort of thing. The purpose isn't to insure every teacher is strapped. The purpose is to cause criminals like the one in Connecticut to know that there was a good possibility that they would run into effective opposition. Right now, in most schools, they can be certain they won't.

Yes, volunteer teachers should be screened and trained and weapons could be secured at certain strong points all through the school so that they could get to them if need be. That would also be pretty cost effective compared to some of the things being suggested. I don't think anybody is talking about teachers walking around with shoulder holsters....well maybe the left wing media nut jobs think that way but nobody else does.

Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.

The head shrinkers need to start figuring this out and do something that could really be usefull as oppsed to this namby pamby guns are bad and grow wings and fly around all by themselves and hurt people bull stuff that will not solve anything.

[Fuchs]

Also besides clothing something that the NRA brought up but nobody else is talking about much is violent video games.Especially violent games they show criminals winning and just generally being destructive with no valid purpose bu to glorify violence itself. Mentally disturbed people often imitate people from the media both real and imaginary, both in how they act as in video games and in how they dress.

Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

[carl]

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.

[Firn]

Being lectured to by a European about European superiority always makes the day just a little bit brighter.

May the warm rays of wisdom enlighten you my friend .

I did now read a bit more in the Wiki - how shocking and lazy - and the following bits have catched my eyes:

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.[42] The likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[43] For example, the mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.[44]

Keep in mind that the US population has grown a lot so the recent downward trend has been remarkable.

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a primary source for data on firearm ownership, with surveys periodically done by other organizations such as Harris Interactive.[64] In 2004, 36.5% of Americans reported having a gun in their home and in 1997, 40% of Americans reported having a gun in their homes. At this time there were approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This meant that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm. These owners possessed 192 million firearms, of which 65 million were handguns.[65] The number of American homes reporting have a gun in their homes was down from 46% as reported in 1989.[66] Cook suggested that increased numbers of female-headed households may have been a factor in declining household gun ownership.[26] A National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted in 1994, indicated that Americans owned 192 million guns: 36% rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% other types of long guns.[67] Most firearm owners owned multiple firearms, with the NSPOF survey indicating 25% of adults owned firearms.[67] In the United States, 11% of households reported actively being involved in hunting,[66] with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons. Throughout the 1970s and much of the 1980s, the rate of gun ownership in the home ranged from 45-50%.[66]

The number homicides by handgun compared to those committed by rifles is surprisingly high. If we consider that there are actually more rifles then handguns in the US the ratio is 1:20! Obviously among the category rifles are typical bolt-action hunting rifles and semi-automatic carabines, both center- and rimfire.

All in all the percentage of homicides per captia, while high compared to other advanced countries is very low I dare to say if we compare it to some 'primitive' cultures. Phillip S. Meilinger on the SMJ has remarked on this, and I remember quite a good amount of sometimes scholarly aricles I read on the issue of violence in similar cultures.

So we are doing pretty well despite the Internet, violent video games, highly effective weapons, economic crisis and high unemployment, urban life & so forth and despite having almost certainly quite violent ancestors. Of course our massive advances in medicine, organisation, infrastructure and technology ( phones) have helped a great deal to reduce the numbers of deaths after violence.

[slapout9]

Americans freak out at nipples, not violence on video. Europeans don't think nipples are outrageous, but are more sceptical about violence.

So while you guys on the west of the great pond discussed Jackson's nipple, many Europeans had been in a years-long national if not continental discussion about video games and their influence on violent behaviour.
The conclusion is pretty much that it's a bogus claim - there's was no causality found after many years of studies (once you weed out the non-scientific or statistically flawed studies).

As so often, Americans are late with a debate and begin at start instead of taking into account what others had learned about the subject before (same with biofuels, for example).
I understand it's a decoy by the NRA and half of the political and media spectrum in the U.S. is enthusiastic about having such a decoy in such times of highly inconvenient pressure, but it's still a decoy.

You are at a disadvantage as you just don't understand violent American nipple hate....it is based on video games and is becoming epidemic.

[slapout9]

Perhaps one reason 'tactical' is fashionable now is that we have been involved in active war for the last going on twelve years. Because of that gear perceived to be military may have a certain cachet. Gear perceived to be associated with 'spec ops' would have even more since for most of that time the media has been in love with spec ops and constantly highlight spec ops this and spec ops that.

I think there is something to that. Crockett's clothes(original Miami Vice) were basically Vietnam jungle fatigues ....... except they were pastel. Watch reruns of the first two seasons and I think you will see a strong connection. have no idea what that means, if it means anything but I think carl is on to something.

Take a look,link to Miami Vice images.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miam...w=1366&bih=641