|
A few facts:
1) Automatic weapons are illegal in the USA. [ there are a few exceptions, primarily you can obtain a special government issues permit to own one for special circumstances. Like a civil war reenactment company owning a Gattling gun for display purposes. The permits are insanely hard to get.
No, NFA items are not hard to get at all, tedious maybe, but certainly not "insanely hard". And provided the state one lives in allows individuals to own NFA items (and the majority of states do). All it takes, is to fill out the BATFE's "Form 4", get the local police chief/county sheriff to sign off on it (or, alternately, set up a trust, in which case a signature is not required), pay $200 for the federal tax stamp, and wait (the wait is usually around 4 months)... And if you are able to pass the background check for a regular firearm, then you should be good to go...
Oh, and Gatling guns are not illegal to own. The BATFE doesn't even classify them as NFA items, so they are just as legal as any other non-NFA firearm; Heck, even California with its strict gun laws, allows these...
I'm ok with this.
|
|
Since they're not hard to get at all, there should be no problem moving some other weapons into that category, right?
<mostly joking>
Somehow you don't see them used in criminal activity much. And those who want them can still get them. Best of both worlds.
When California expanded its list of banned assault weapons (which took effect in 2000), we were given the option to "register" them with the California DOJ...
If this were required on a Federal level, I would be willing to live with that...
Problem is, I don't see that as being enough for a lot of people...
Considering Montana has told the Feds to go jump off a bridge over Obamacare when we made them enforcing Obamacare on Montanans illegal, we'd do the same with a gun ban. My guns are not going anywhere....You are aware that those laws are purely symbolic, right? The ACA will be enforced, same as a gun ban would be.
More accurately, a gun ban might be struck down on 2nd Amendment issues, depending on the details, but if it passes that test, it will apply to Montana regardless of Montana law. The SC has not and will not uphold that kind of 10th amendment challenge and has already held the ACA as constitutional.
Nope, not going to be symbolic. For the same reason we have medical marijuana laws, and we can already own guns and accessories that are illegal according to the federal government as long as they are made in Montana.
Random anonymous shootings are rare and irregular. People killing people who they know is much more common and happens several thousand times a year, every year. Those were shootings that happened at a school, you don't get to pick and choose which ones count.
The point of banning guns is to take them out of the hands of most criminals. It's happened successfully in multiple countries, so your claim of the opposite is in fact false and not supported by observable situations.
Name a country where they banned guns and gun crimes went down. Don't say England, gun crimes (all crimes actually) went up after they banned guns. Don't say Australia, gun crimes went up the more restrictions they added. Don't say China, mass killers there just use knives anyway.
Edit: Read an article yesterday with British cops lamenting the fact that criminals are buying tons of non-functioning replica guns in France and converting them in Britain to fire live rounds.
So, if it truly works, it should be easy to name more than one country.
On the other hand everyone in Switzerland has a gun.
Banning guns never takes them from the hands of criminals. Do you think criminals are going to go along with any "mandatory buy back"? Yes, about as likely as them looking at a sign that says "Gun Free Zones" and walking away.
Look at our porous border. Even assuming they actually got rid of every gun in this nation, if they refuse to cover the border... how long do you think before the criminals get rearmed?
You claim my claim is observably false, but you offer no verifiable proof. Are people just supposed to take your word on it?
The facts are actually that if more guns are in law-abiding hands, the less crime happens. I've seen it everywhere I have lived.
A gunless utopia where criminals do not have guns is a pipe dream.
We'll see how that plays out. Every serious legal opinion I've seen says it's a joke.
Most legal opinions out there are jokes. But yep, we'll just have to see. Thinking that a state that already defies the Feds on marijuana won't defy the Feds on Obamacare though is a bit strange.
Thinking of Switzerland got me remembering two cities that I know of in this country. One in Georgia and one somewhere in the southwest. They passed laws that require homeowners to own guns. Can anyone guess what happened to the crime rates in those cities?
The criminals went elsewhere.
Thinking of Switzerland got me remembering two cities that I know of in this country. One in Georgia and one somewhere in the southwest. They passed laws that require homeowners to own guns. Can anyone guess what happened to the crime rates in those cities?
The criminals went elsewhere.
CITATION NEEDED.
There's, like, this one place, I don't know where it is, maybe it's in Tennessee or maybe it's in Wyoming, but they made everyone have guns and they all blewed up in a hail of gunfire. I know it's true, a friend of a friend told me.
Thinking of Switzerland got me remembering two cities that I know of in this country. One in Georgia and one somewhere in the southwest. They passed laws that require homeowners to own guns. Can anyone guess what happened to the crime rates in those cities?
The criminals went elsewhere.
CITATION NEEDED.
There's, like, this one place, I don't know where it is, maybe it's in Tennessee or maybe it's in Wyoming, but they made everyone have guns and they all blewed up in a hail of gunfire. I know it's true, a friend of a friend told me.
I don't remember the exact Georgia city. I think it is Dalton. It was in the news because anti-gun people were not happy.
The other one is in New Mexico, I think. I was discussing this with a friend yesterday and he mentioned that one because he lived there.
Kennesaw, Georgia...
Hel, google completed my question for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts
Just a suggestion, too..
If you are going to be a smartass about it, you should make sure it isn't a google search away. Lol
Most legal opinions out there are jokes. But yep, we'll just have to see. Thinking that a state that already defies the Feds on marijuana won't defy the Feds on Obamacare though is a bit strange.
We'll see how that plays out. Every serious legal opinion I've seen says it's a joke.
In Gonzales v. Raich the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's ability to criminalize medical marijuana despite state laws. Obama's Justice Department has not prioritized such prosecutions.
Most drug enforcement happens on a state level anyway, so it's not as big a deal as it might seem.Will Montana actually defy a Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Somehow prevent the IRS from collecting (or more accurately, forcing the IRS to refund) the tax penalties? Arrest people for getting insurance through the federal exchange?
So, your explanation to use defying federal law on marijuana is that "Most drug enforcement happens on a state level anyway." that's a bit of a cop-out.
No we are not going to arrest people that choose to participate. If you read the law, it criminalizes the state or federal government putting penalties against anyone that chooses not to participate.
Whether or not the Feds will push the issue, or the state chooses to stand it's ground... we'll know soon.
[
From that Wikipedia link
Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.[20] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[21][22] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23]So gun rights activist claims a drastic drop in crime. Other studies are much more equivocal. It's a rather small city with a high median income, especially for Georgia. I don't know how those demographics have changed, but it's not very surprising it has a low crime rate.
You obviously missed the point.
They have a mandatory gun law, gun violence and other crimes did not skyrocket.
You can nitpick what caused the actual drop in crime all day long. But the additional guns did not raise the crime.
As for demographics, probably on par with Newtown, CT.
An electrical weapon is a better choice than an AoE that can take you out instead of the target.
Oh and yes sprays like this can and have resulted in deaths. "less lethal" is the prefered term, but anything can kill in some situations.
Whether electrical weapons are or are not better depends on the situation. If there are multiple attackers or if you miss with your first shot, an electrical weapon is a poor choice unless you have the shotgun shell type (which requires ownership of a firearm) or a melee type. Sprays have their problems, but they have their advantages.
As for the chance, of death, it's a very, very small chance, and ANY method of self defense or restraint used has at least a small chance to result in death. To put it bluntly, fighting is not a safe activity.
[
So you'll punish the IRS for not refunding the penalties? Let me know how that works out.
Yep, we'll see.
An electrical weapon is a better choice than an AoE that can take you out instead of the target.
Oh and yes sprays like this can and have resulted in deaths. "less lethal" is the prefered term, but anything can kill in some situations.Whether electrical weapons are or are not better depends on the situation. If there are multiple attackers or if you miss with your first shot, an electrical weapon is a poor choice unless you have the shotgun shell type (which requires ownership of a firearm) or a melee type. Sprays have their problems, but they have their advantages.
As for the chance, of death, it's a very, very small chance, and ANY method of self defense or restraint used has at least a small chance to result in death. To put it bluntly, fighting is not a safe activity.
If you use a spray though, a can of bear spray is a poor choice. The cans are not exactly sized to conceal. I carry my bear spray on my belt behind my gun, and the can is still harder to carry.
So, anyone seen Django Unchained yet?
Name a country where they banned guns and gun crimes went down. Don't say England, gun crimes (all crimes actually) went up after they banned guns. Don't say Australia, gun crimes went up the more restrictions they added.Don't mention them because guns aren't banned in England or Australia. I'm not sure there is a country in the world that has banned guns.
I'd like to know where you're getting your stats and figures though. Australia, for example, has 0.1 incident of homicide from firearm per 100,000 people in 2009 verses 3.3 in the USA in that same year. The unintentional death was 0.09 per 100,000 vs 0.27 per 100,000 in the US. Mind you if your assertion that those rates have gone up since they enacted gun control, and the original numbers were far lower, then either set of those numbers would still much lower then those found in the states.
Handguns are banned in England and I never stated they were banned in Australia... just that there are heavy restrictions. I have many friends in both. Statwise, I was looking at the same stats that people that think banning guns means criminals no longer have access to them look at. ;)
Also, I added to my use of England "all crimes actually", I meant that for Australia, too. Generally if a person thinks they are going to be shot, they are less likely to burglarize you, carjack you, rape you, etc...
As for the US having more firearm homicides, yes... because there are more illegal guns on the streets. Look at Chicago. Look at my home town of Flint. Look at Detroit. It isn't law-abiding citizens doing that.
If you think gun control is meant to go after those illegal guns, you are mad. If they were, they'd already be going after them. Instead they want to take guns from law abiding citizens.
As for unintentional death, you are more likely to die from a car accident than a gun accident.
Name a country where they banned guns and gun crimes went down. Don't say England, gun crimes (all crimes actually) went up after they banned guns. Don't say Australia, gun crimes went up the more restrictions they added.Don't mention them because guns aren't banned in England or Australia. I'm not sure there is a country in the world that has banned guns.
I'd like to know where you're getting your stats and figures though. Australia, for example, has 0.1 incident of homicide from firearm per 100,000 people in 2009 verses 3.3 in the USA in that same year. The unintentional death was 0.09 per 100,000 vs 0.27 per 100,000 in the US. Mind you if your assertion that those rates have gone up since they enacted gun control, and the original numbers were far lower, then either set of those numbers would still much lower then those found in the states.
How did these numbers compare before the restrictions were passed?
Well, you see, all the things you bring up are only true because americans have guns. Ban guns, and God knows what the mexicans, hawaiians, native americans and canadians might do? You are aware that the canadians invaded, pillaging, burning, looting and generally giving everybody a bad time, just because american vigilance slipped for a few days?
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
If you use a spray though, a can of bear spray is a poor choice. The cans are not exactly sized to conceal. I carry my bear spray on my belt behind my gun, and the can is still harder to carry.An electrical weapon is a better choice than an AoE that can take you out instead of the target.
Oh and yes sprays like this can and have resulted in deaths. "less lethal" is the prefered term, but anything can kill in some situations.Whether electrical weapons are or are not better depends on the situation. If there are multiple attackers or if you miss with your first shot, an electrical weapon is a poor choice unless you have the shotgun shell type (which requires ownership of a firearm) or a melee type. Sprays have their problems, but they have their advantages.
As for the chance, of death, it's a very, very small chance, and ANY method of self defense or restraint used has at least a small chance to result in death. To put it bluntly, fighting is not a safe activity.
When talking about teachers, it's probably in a desk drawer, so carrying or concealing it isn't really an issue.
Granted, how hard would it be to manufacture a smaller can? If it is going to be standard issue to schools, there would be enough of a market to justify the cost.
|
Them sorting the positive effects vs negative effects doesn't change my top four as having the greatest effect on the situation in any direction.
Except in this case theres four going one way (bad) and the other four going the otherway (good).
They are polar opposite figures.
Yes they all represent 'significant effect' however by overlooking that two were positive and two were negative you start to look as though you are being misleading.
Its like saying a million dollars in savings and a million dollars in debt are pretty much equivalent.
That depends on what your are asking about, paying a million dollars has an effect on the economy the magnitude of which is the same regardless of whether you are paying or being paid. Your personal standing, and that of the second party, is what needs to know whether you are paying or being paid, the effect on the economy is the same.
Looking at the top four in total gives four items to either support, or debunk, based on your stance.
Whether the effect is positive or negative doesn't matter in identifying the top four issues to address, only after the issues are selected and you move to building plans for solutions or ideas, only then does it matter whether the issues has a positive effect (and needs encouragement, or a workaround) or a negative effect (and needs a solution or needs to be offset).
|
|
From what I'm reading in the Wiki entry you linked it says the assistant principal had a gun in his car and when he got it he confronted the shooter in the parking lot. That would seem to suggest to me that the shooter had done all the shooting he wanted in the school and was attempting to escape when he was apprehended. Not to belittle this brave man's actions but I don't see how he saved any lives unless you count the shooter. I suppose it's possible that the shooter would have taken his rampage elsewhere, or that apprehending him gave critical time to paramedics, but I'm not familiar with the case enough to say one way or the other. That's just the impression I get from the brief snip-it on Wikipedia.When's the last time a bunch of kids died because some guy went into a school with a gun? That's so...last week.Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?And how many times do teachers in some states carry and not kill?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
And some save lives....
Just imagine if he didn't have to run to the car. He could have stopped the shooter much sooner.
|
|
Democracy is the people wielding the power to check a government, you do not need guns to protect your self from your government.
The British are not going to make you part of the empire again.
It may be a surprise for some but the US Civil War is over.
You have massacred the Native Americans and taken their land and they are no longer a threat.
Mexico is not going to take Texas or California back.
There are not enough Hawians to challenge your illegal annexation of their country.
The Canadians aren't going to invade, even though you invaded them and failed.
Why the f$$! do you want to have guns if you don't need them.
Growing up near farms I can understand the need for farmers,I also understand hunting ( I don't agree with it but I understand), target and sport shooting fine, but casual gun ownership why?
Voting isn't power or authority, it is the expression of authority and only matters to the government as long as you have the authority to back it up.
It's like money, the value isn't in the dollar, it's in what is backing the dollar. Why do you think we have inflation problems? Some president decided to stop backing the american dollar, and now the value of the dollar has sunk, (Obama's bailouts just sped up an already ongoing process).
|
|
...Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.
80 percent of Montanans own at least 1 gun. 80 percent of them own more than 2 guns. 80 percent of them own more than 3 guns. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians....
Kids here train with guns all the time.
There has never been a mass killing here. There has never been a school shooting here. The violent crime rate is lower than most states with massive gun restrictions.
If guns kill people, my own are defective.
There have been 2 school shootings in Montana, both with 1 fatality, in 1986 and 1994. There aren't really any accurate records to search for Montana (easily) prior to the 1950's.
With 118 school shootings since 1950, Montana accounts for 1.6% of them, but only has 0.3% of the population. I don't have the time to do the figures for deaths, though I think Montana will fare better on that one.
Also, statistics show that gun control laws do lower gun deaths, including laws about trigger locks, safes and ammunition storage. But don't let silly things like facts and science get in the way of your opinion.
I stand corrected on the school shootings, which I don't mind. :)
But you also have to remember our .3% of the population has a much higher percentage of guns. Two school shootings with 2 deaths when we have more guns than we have people? There are more guns here now, then there were a few years back, let alone 1994.
Edit: Looked them up. The 1994 one in Butte was a teased kid. If he hadn't had access to a gun, I am sure he would have used something else.
The Lewistown one also had a specific target, and could have just have easily used a knife... and back then... a knife would have probably been allowed in that school.
When I was talking school shootings, I did mean random Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown ones... not a person trying to
The problem with saying it works in other countries, is that the arguement doesn't account for all the other factors. There has been nothing shown to indicate that the only major factor to produce the effect is the gun laws.
It could be any number of other factors, look at the report I mentioned earlier, a huge number of factors were accounted for and gun laws were not even in the top eight contributing factors (doesn't matter what direction something is going, it's still a contributing factor if it has any effect)
|
|
Unless he went back to shooting before the police found him. but he was apprehended before we will ever need to find outAnd an asteroid could have hit the school too.
You don't shoot up a school, get in your car, leave, and come back, and then start shooting again (in no small part because the cops will be there by that point). Seriously, did you read the article you linked? Is this actually the best correlation you can make between facts and your conclusion?
It simply demonstrates that the weapons neccesity of being adequately secured against accidental misfire prevents them from being used in time. This is evidence against your side, not for it.
I don't think anyone thought he would return to that school, at least not that day. But if he got away, he could have started shooting elsewhere, or even started shooting at the police in a neighborhood if they found him.
We don't know what he would have done. Him going back is unlikely, but him endangering others somewhere else is very likely.
|
|
Random anonymous shootings are rare and irregular. People killing people who they know is much more common and happens several thousand times a year, every year. Those were shootings that happened at a school, you don't get to pick and choose which ones count.
The point of banning guns is to take them out of the hands of most criminals. It's happened successfully in multiple countries, so your claim of the opposite is in fact false and not supported by observable situations.
Name a country where they banned guns and gun crimes went down. Don't say England, gun crimes (all crimes actually) went up after they banned guns. Don't say Australia, gun crimes went up the more restrictions they added. Don't say China, mass killers there just use knives anyway.
Edit: Read an article yesterday with British cops lamenting the fact that criminals are buying tons of non-functioning replica guns in France and converting them in Britain to fire live rounds.
So, if it truly works, it should be easy to name more than one country.
On the other hand everyone in Switzerland has a gun.
Banning guns never takes them from the hands of criminals. Do you think criminals are going to go along with any "mandatory buy back"? Yes, about as likely as them looking at a sign that says "Gun Free Zones" and walking away.
Look at our porous border. Even assuming they actually got rid of every gun in this nation, if they refuse to cover the border... how long do you think before the criminals get rearmed?
You claim my claim is observably false, but you offer no verifiable proof. Are people just supposed to take your word on it?
The facts are actually that if more guns are in law-abiding hands, the less crime happens. I've seen it everywhere I have lived.
A gunless utopia where criminals do not have guns is a pipe dream.
The key issue here, is that when guns are allowed, but law abiding citizens don't employ them, then they don't do their job of balancing the law-abiding citizenry against the criminals.
Law-abiding citizens can only use them if they have at the time they are needed, and to live in a place where people can easily get guns and to not carry one (and know how to use it) places the responsibility on you, you decided to risk going out in public, a pretty safe risk yes, but still a risk, therefore when you get mugged or held hostage you can't say that it was all someones else's fault that you were victimized, you should be prepared to deal with the world outside, even the unlikely occurances.
Edit: Rereading this and I realized it sounds a bit harsher then intended.
I am not saying that being victimized is the victums fault, but the victums do have the primary responsibility for protecting themselves.
|
|
Perhaps, perhaps he might have been another victim or hit someone in the cross fire. Again it takes a brave individual to confront a shooter but I don't see any evidence that lives were saved in this incident.Just imagine if he didn't have to run to the car. He could have stopped the shooter much sooner.From what I'm reading in the Wiki entry you linked it says the assistant principal had a gun in his car and when he got it he confronted the shooter in the parking lot. That would seem to suggest to me that the shooter had done all the shooting he wanted in the school and was attempting to escape when he was apprehended. Not to belittle this brave man's actions but I don't see how he saved any lives unless you count the shooter. I suppose it's possible that the shooter would have taken his rampage elsewhere, or that apprehending him gave critical time to paramedics, but I'm not familiar with the case enough to say one way or the other. That's just the impression I get from the brief snip-it on Wikipedia.When's the last time a bunch of kids died because some guy went into a school with a gun? That's so...last week.Also, I should point out using bear spray in a school would be the height of irresponsibility. You could kill children with it.But guns in school are ok because you can't kill children with guns?And how many times do teachers in some states carry and not kill?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
And some save lives....
They weren't saved because he didn't have access to a gun at the time he needed it. We don't know that he would have been successful in saving anyone, but we do know for absolute, that he couldn't save anyone when his weapon was inaccessible. And that was the point, inaccessible weapons are worthless at the time weapons are needed.
Well, you see, all the things you bring up are only true because americans have guns. Ban guns, and God knows what the mexicans, hawaiians, native americans and canadians might do? You are aware that the canadians invaded, pillaging, burning, looting and generally giving everybody a bad time, just because american vigilance slipped for a few days?I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
No? As in, you seriously can't tell? Wow. :-)
Kelsey, if you need a smaller can... just get a strong pepper spray..
You also dont realize how large the cloud of bear spray is. Spraying it in a roomful of children would be bad. It is designed to hang in the air so the bear runs into it. You don't spray it directly on the bear.
No? As in, you seriously can't tell? Wow. :-)Well, you see, all the things you bring up are only true because americans have guns. Ban guns, and God knows what the mexicans, hawaiians, native americans and canadians might do? You are aware that the canadians invaded, pillaging, burning, looting and generally giving everybody a bad time, just because american vigilance slipped for a few days?I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.
It's Poe's Law. In an environment where crazy positions are the norm, it becomes increasingly hard to discern parody from actual belief.
Maybe schools should all have chloroform sprinklers so if anyone started shooting, EVERYONE gets a nap? Or maybe flamethrower-armed guards in every classroom? Or automated killer robots that murderize everyone not providing the proper password, switched daily for extra safety? Or mined corridors where everyone has to memorize the proper, also changing paths? Or bombs that kill everyone in the school if shots are fired, to make sure the terrorists get the message that we will not negotiate with them? Or permanent clouds of mustard gas that will let the kids build up immunity? Or surprise scything pendulums from the ceiling?
"Step on a crack and break your..." *BOOM*
"Broke more than that he did."
[ It's not just criminals that murder people with guns, murder suicides are pretty common place these days, and also there are lots of people that shoot people who never had a criminal record before easy access to firearms allowed them to take another human life.
The good thing about criminals with guns is that they usually use them on other criminals, the bad thing about criminals with guns is that sometimes innocent victims get caught in the crossfire. I'm sure there are crooks that use guns to rob people but that's pretty rare in countries that have restrictions on guns. However it's not the criminals with guns that are doing these mass shootings, it's suicidal or psychotic people, and I'm under no illusions that gun control will stop people from trying to kill or maim people . . . but it will probably reduce the number of people killed.
So you went from asking me for stats, to postng as if all or even most murder-suicides use legal guns... when you have no stat on where they were legally obtained or not.
I am not going to say no legal guns are used for murder-suicides. It happens. They are also the most publicized. But most are the same as any other murder.... usually by someone who is already disallowed a gun.
In fact, I am an EMT. I have only once experienced a man that used a legal gun for a murder-suicide. He was 80 and dying and he killed his 75 and dying wife so their kids no longer had to spend money on them.
But all this focus is on guns, when the major fact is they let the criminals back out of prison on a regular basis due to overcrowding. This guy that killed the firefighters has killed in the past.
If people wanted to stop deaths from happening, maybe they should keep those people out of society instead.
Anyway, I really wasn't wanting a major debate on this subject. My guns are not going anywhere.
My main point was bear spray makes a horrible self-defense option.
Spraying it in a roomful of children would be bad.
Would you prefer the kids sprayed with Bear spray (as an unintentional side effect) or sprayed with bullets?
That it's designed to nail an area is actually in its favour as the person deploying it does not have to be as 'precise' and might be able to deploy from behind cover, shoot wild in panic etc and still get the desired outcome.
Spraying it in a roomful of children would be bad.Would you prefer the kids sprayed with Bear spray (as an unintentional side effect) or sprayed with bullets?
That it's designed to nail an area is actually in its favour as the person deploying it does not have to be as 'precise' and might be able to deploy from behind cover, shoot wild in panic etc and still get the desired outcome.
So, you would rather not have the possibility of bullets hitting a kid or kids, but instead the fact that the all of the kids will breathe in that stuff? It is strong enough that it can kill some adult humans. To make it worse it is an enclosed room.
You especially don't want a teacher spraying it wildly around a room full of children.
I thought the goal was to save lives.... You are not even allowed to wear cologne or perfume in the children's wing or ERs of hospitals for a reason.
A teacher with gun training should be able to nail the bad guy with little risk to the students, bear spray.... Yeah... No. Lol
Crime in Australia...
Australian Institute of Criminology 2012
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CB AA%7Dfacts11.pdf
The overall number of recorded violent crimes decreased in 2010, except for the offence kidnapping and abduction.
Assault continued to occur at a rate that far
exceeded any other violent offence (766 per 100,000 population).
• Property crime decreased again in 2010; consistent with the general decrease evident over the previous 10 years.
Recorded crime rates
Trends in the number of recorded crime victims do not take into account increases in the population over time. As a result, an increase may reflect an increase in the general population in that period rather than an increase in the actual likelihood of a person becoming a victim of crime.
Crime rates adjust for changes in population size. In this section, they are calculated per 100,000 persons in the population per year.
Since 1996, the rate of assault in Australia has been far higher than any other type of violent crime. At its peak in 2007, the assault rate was 840 per 100,000 population.
In 2010, the rate fell to 766 victims per 100,000 population.
• Homicide and kidnapping/abduction are low volume crimes; in 2009 and 2010 the rates continued to be very low. The homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000 population, while the kidnapping/abduction rate was 2.7 per 100,000 population.
• The rate of sexual assault has been declining by an average of three percent per year since 2006.
Since 2004, robbery has been occurring at a lower rate than sexual assault; declining on average by two percent per year.
In 2010, the rate of Motor Vehicle Theft was 245 per 100,000. This represents a 10 percent decrease from the previous year. However, the most rapid decline occurred between 2001 and 2004, when MVT fell, on average, by eight percent per year.
•The rate of ‘other’ theft increased rapidly between 1996 and 2000 rising from 2,850 to 3,557 per 100,000, before starting to decline. Between 2004 and 2010,the rate of ‘other’ theft declined by 24 percent or, on average, three percent per year.
• In 2010, the rate of UEWI - Unlawful Entry With Intent (Breaking and Entering, Burglary Home invasion) was 971 per 100,000, an overall decline of 56 percent since 1996.
Murder suicides are usually crimes of passion, usually a man shoots his wife/girlfriend, and then himself. These are almost always done with legally obtained weapons. This is also one of those crimes that no amount of gun control will prevent because even if you completely removed the guns from the picture men are usually able to overpower and kill their domestic partners. This is a violence against women issue more then a gun control issue. I only pointed this out because usually the perpetrator doesn't have a criminal record prior to the incident. This is why women need to press charges, no amount of violence should be acceptable, and having charges filed against him might prevent him from getting a firearm.
]Blame drug crime. If we didn't have people serving time for smoking pot we might not have to give known murderers early release.
[And most of the people in this debate aren't interested in taking your guns. We just want control on future sales. Asking for a ban on all high capacity clips doesn't seem in the slightest bit unreasonable to me.
PS I would still like to know where you're getting those numbers.
I am well knowledgable about murder-suicides. I have been on the scene at quite a few of them. As I stated, only one of those used a legal gun. Most of them were done by felons.
But considering murder-suicides can also be done by stabbing, or drowning, or suffocating, or sitting in a running car in a closed garage... and numerous other ways.
Blaming the gun is a form of scapegoating.
I don't blame marijuana, because I am for legalization of marijuana. But the firefighter shooter was not in for a drug crime. They don't only release druggies... they even release murderers, rapists, etc...
But if I want to purchase more guns, then it would effect me, do you honestly believe a ban on high capacity MAGAZINE would help things? So you make the guy change mags more often... In a gun free zone that won't matter because he'd have all the time in the world.
You also have to remember, high capacity mags jam more often. There is a reason I neglected to get huge drums for my AK47.
Well, if you can tell me where you get that murder-suicides are usually by law-abiding citizens then maybe I will tell you where I get them. I am not going to play the game of "you must show me yours, but I don't have to show you mine."
But anyway, since you are not a "ban 'em all" sort, I see no need to continue... especially since I am not necessarily against a few tighter controls. I am OK with making the 3day wait mandatory. I am OK with not allowing high capacity mags, or making you have to pay a lot to get them.
There are restrictions I find reasonable.