"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...


Some questions have no easy answers.

In China there have been a series of mass killings of children using
knives. What is the psychological appeal to killing a room full of
children? How do we make the schools safe short of posting an armed
guard in every class room? How do we detect and isolate the mentally
disturbed amongst us who are capable of such acts, without giving up
our basic freedoms? Has something changed in our society which
inspired these crimes - media, culture, video games, etc. ?

Like I said, some questions have no easy answers.

---------------------------------------------------------

So true. Like most I am sure, I was horrified and deeply saddened by
the events of last Friday in Connecticut. The shear insanity of this
20 year old's actions are unfathomable. Also like most, I have
watched and listened to the 24 hour a day coverage of the horrific
event, mostly on cable news channels (MSNBC and CNN) and on the
Internet. I was angry, sad, frustrated and depressed, depending on
what specific aspect of the events were being discussed and/or
analyzed.

I tried to remember what our society was like back when I was a
youngster. I came into this world in 1949. I found a website that
provides (for a fee) statistical information on virtually any subject
you are interested in. Since these mass murders seem to always
involve someone who ultimately takes their own life as well, I
searched for: number of suicides in USA since 1950 and the number of
homicides in the USA since 1950. I fully expected to see an upward
trend in these categories over the decades since 1950.

To my surprise, there was not an upward trend. The data was
presented in terms of male and female suicides and homicides per
100,000 in the overall population. Firearms were involved in the
majority for both categories, but at the same relative level
(percentage) for each decade. The number of suicides and homicides
committed per 100,000 in 1950 and then for every decade since was
about the same as those today, give or take a handful. Furthermore,
the numbers were actually considerably higher than today for both
categories in the 1980 - 1990 decades.

I've heard arguments that lay blame on violent, gory video games, easy
access to guns, drugs, poor parenting, mental health, etc.
I am sure all have some level of contribution to violent crime and
steps should be taken to address them. (Having just gone through the
permitting process in Massachusetts for a firearm permit, I am
completely in favor of the overall tightening of gun control laws and
the banning of military type assault rifles. Massachusetts has one
of, if not *the* most restrictive gun laws of all the States in the
USA but I was still amazed at how easy it is to get a permit with very
little training.)

My conclusion is that no suicide or homicide is justified or
acceptable in a society however the numbers are *not* increasing,
contrary to what we may be led to believe or assume. From 1950 to
the 1970/1980 decades we didn't really have the media information
available to us that exists today. MSNBC and CNN have had 24 hour a
day coverage of the horrible events since last Friday. Yahoo News on
the Internet reports every shooting that takes place anywhere in the
country, 15 minutes after it happens. (there's a new one today in
Texas, involving one person).

I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of
Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few
years.
But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.

On 12/17/2012 7:43 AM, Eisboch wrote:

I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of
Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years.
But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward
trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and
1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today.

Indeed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103186662

"angry about property taxes"

In article , lid says...

On 12/17/2012 7:43 AM, Eisboch wrote:

I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of
Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few years.
But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or upward
trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the 1980's and
1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear today.

Indeed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103186662

"angry about property taxes"

That may make Harry go nuts and do the same, he owes a lot in property
taxes and other debts and liens.

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .


Some questions have no easy answers.

In China there have been a series of mass killings of children using
knives. What is the psychological appeal to killing a room full of
children? How do we make the schools safe short of posting an armed
guard in every class room? How do we detect and isolate the mentally
disturbed amongst us who are capable of such acts, without giving up
our basic freedoms? Has something changed in our society which
inspired these crimes - media, culture, video games, etc. ?

Like I said, some questions have no easy answers.

---------------------------------------------------------

So true. Like most I am sure, I was horrified and deeply saddened by
the events of last Friday in Connecticut. The shear insanity of this
20 year old's actions are unfathomable. Also like most, I have
watched and listened to the 24 hour a day coverage of the horrific
event, mostly on cable news channels (MSNBC and CNN) and on the
Internet. I was angry, sad, frustrated and depressed, depending on
what specific aspect of the events were being discussed and/or
analyzed.

I tried to remember what our society was like back when I was a
youngster. I came into this world in 1949. I found a website that
provides (for a fee) statistical information on virtually any subject
you are interested in. Since these mass murders seem to always
involve someone who ultimately takes their own life as well, I
searched for: number of suicides in USA since 1950 and the number of
homicides in the USA since 1950. I fully expected to see an upward
trend in these categories over the decades since 1950.

To my surprise, there was not an upward trend. The data was
presented in terms of male and female suicides and homicides per
100,000 in the overall population. Firearms were involved in the
majority for both categories, but at the same relative level
(percentage) for each decade. The number of suicides and homicides
committed per 100,000 in 1950 and then for every decade since was
about the same as those today, give or take a handful. Furthermore,
the numbers were actually considerably higher than today for both
categories in the 1980 - 1990 decades.

I've heard arguments that lay blame on violent, gory video games, easy
access to guns, drugs, poor parenting, mental health, etc.
I am sure all have some level of contribution to violent crime and
steps should be taken to address them. (Having just gone through the
permitting process in Massachusetts for a firearm permit, I am
completely in favor of the overall tightening of gun control laws and
the banning of military type assault rifles. Massachusetts has one
of, if not *the* most restrictive gun laws of all the States in the
USA but I was still amazed at how easy it is to get a permit with very
little training.)

My conclusion is that no suicide or homicide is justified or
acceptable in a society however the numbers are *not* increasing,
contrary to what we may be led to believe or assume. From 1950 to
the 1970/1980 decades we didn't really have the media information
available to us that exists today. MSNBC and CNN have had 24 hour a
day coverage of the horrible events since last Friday. Yahoo News on
the Internet reports every shooting that takes place anywhere in the
country, 15 minutes after it happens. (there's a new one today in
Texas, involving one person).

I am not attempting to trivialize or minimize the horrible events of
Friday or of the mass killings that have occurred in the past few
years.
But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be, "What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

Here is a rifle, but is it an assault weapon?

http://www.basspro.com/Ruger-Mini14-...duct/10218139/

It looks to me like it would be a nice varmint or small game hunting rifle. But, what if I add
these:

http://andean-inc.com/Merchant5/grap...1/MA1430_s.jpg

They a Promag Industries' .223 caliber, 30 round magazine for Ruger Mini-14 and Ranch Rifles.

Or what if I just become very proficient at changing magazines? It might add a whole two seconds to
the time it takes me to fire twenty rounds from 10-round magazines.

I wouldn't mind the banning of assault style weapons simply because it would make some of the
anti-gun crowd happy - until the same thing happens again with a 'normal' looking rifle, or a
'normal' looking pistol.

"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons.
Target practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that.

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and
ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police
use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the
teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and
defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits
the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But
in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the
ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down
to that.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I know, but it seems we have to draw some kind of distinction, which
is why I used the terminology, "specifically designed for".

Have to start somewhere.

In article ,
says...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:50:18 PM UTC-5, Eisboch wrote:
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
------------------------------------------



"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I
think his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably
simple category system of what is available for purchase and ownership
by private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting.
No more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with
no more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed
based on background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.


For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private
citizens don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.

Problem is... ANY firearm can be used both offensively and defensively. Take an M15 and a .45 ACP. Generally, the first fits the offensive weapon category, the second the home defensive one. But in the right situation, the M16 would be the better defense, and the ACP the better offense.

In the end, it's the person pulling the trigger. It always comes down to that.

It's the person pulling the trigger? Exactly! That's why we need to keep
guns out of the hands of lunatics and criminals.

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on
guns and homicide and found that there?s substantial evidence that
indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you?re
looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.
9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-
related violence.
Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations
between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he
found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more
immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths
from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly
predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer
gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not
causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system...

On 12/18/2012 4:43 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:43:39 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


But statistics indicate that this is *not* a growing epidemic or
upward trend. There were unfortunately more that occurred in the
1980's and 1990's. We just didn't hear as much about them as we hear
today.



I've also heard similar statistics presented on one of our local radio
stations. The statistics make
us look better.

However, I'd have no problem with the banning of assault weapons. Target
practice and hunting can
both be done with other types of rifles. The question will then be,
"What constitutes an assault
weapon?"

------------------------------------------

"Justwait" made a comment that caused me to think about this. I think
his definitions of guns could be developed into a reasonably simple
category system of what is available for purchase and ownership by
private citizens and what is reserved for military and police use.

For private citizens:

Firearms (handguns and rifles/shotguns) specifically designed for
target practice and competition. No more than 7-10 round capacity.
Firearms (rifles and shotguns) designed specifically for hunting. No
more than 5-10 rounds.
Firearms designed for personal/home defense. Includes handguns with no
more than 7-10 round capacity. Concealed carry permits allowed based on
background check.
Non-functioning firearms as collectibles/display pieces. These can
include military type weapons but must be permanently disabled.

For Law Enforcement and Military:

Firearms and weapons designed for both defensive and offensive use.
Automatic and semi-automatic with unlimited round capacity.

The days of private citizens being concerned about arming to the teeth
to protect themselves from their own government are long over.
That interpretation of the 2nd Ammendent is obsolete. Private citizens
don't need high capacity, offensive weapons.


There you go... Now let's get on my idea of hiring retired PoPo as
administrators, janitors, coaches, teachers aids, cafeteria workers, etc
in schools and let them carry.

Like I said, a uniformed security guard or even police officer is a
sitting duck if he doesn't know an attack is being planned, he would
just be fodder. Now imagine in CT, if there were two or three armed
teachers or staff, even a janitor who heard the shots come over the loud
speaker and made their way to the office, even if just to lay down cover
fire until the cops got there minutes later. There is a good possibility
the kid would have never made it out of the office and to the classroom.
We might be talking about less than 5 dead... The key though is the
unions would have to allow these retired PoPo to come into the system...

And to be clear... These folks are not hired to be security, or to sit
around collecting a check for nothing. They are hired for already
existing jobs within the facility, to push pencils in the office, coach
gym, janitorial, cook food... It would be a second career for them, just
that retired PoPo might be enticed by the town to fill some of those
every day jobs involved in the running of a school...