18 Children Among 26 Dead in Conn Elementary School Shooting

Boston.com is the website of a pretty liberal paper and the piece pretty much shreds the solutions both sides have suggested. But some people here only wear partisan glasses. Why would I highlight it since it attacks the NRA solution?

Some people here don't post the links to the material they use as arguments... If it was so supportive of your cause, why didn't you have the guts to post a link to it?... Kind of like articles about a "{former) Marine who (was in a Mexican jail because he broke the law), and then trying to blame Obama (for not coming to his rescue)"???

Pathetic.

The article wasn't supportive of my cause. I just thought it would interest people.

So, you thought it would interest people, but not enough to post a link to it?

the Fox blog selectively uses "facts" to make the points he is trying to make. For the most part, he merely states his opinions with no supporting evidence.

Using the same information, Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute makes the opposite conclusions in a WSJ op ed. Kopel points out the increase in random mass shootings (where the victims are randomly chosen). Fox uses the totality of mass shootings (which includes those where the victims are preselected, such as workplace, domestic violence, etc., any shooting having 4 deaths).

Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

Related Video


Editorial page editor Paul Gigot discusses the Newtown shooting and its political aftermath.

Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of "active shooters"—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24036.html

LadyJazzer wrote: Some people here don't post the links to the material they use as arguments... If it was so supportive of your cause, why didn't you have the guts to post a link to it?... Kind of like articles about a "{former) Marine who (was in a Mexican jail because he broke the law), and then trying to blame Obama (for not coming to his rescue)"???

Pathetic.

Says she that barely ever supports what she says with anything but the equivalent of a stomping foot and links to articles of more opinions used to sell commercials. You barely make arguments, you make demands, like a dictator.

Says she who ALWAYS posts links to things I post from other sources...

Let me know when you have something relevant to say... This wasn't it.

Something the Dog Said wrote: shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

Please tell me you aren't trying to convince us that the killer in Newtown walked out that front door with those guns in his hands without any specific thoughts as to where he was headed next. A "randm" shooting would be just that, not a shooting where the killer targeted a specific locality. Who was killed may have been random, but the target of choice certainly wasn't random. That specific school was chosen by the killer for specific reasons, certainly not what any thining person would attempt to pass off as a "random" incident.

By definition of the author, Dave Kopel, a random shooting is one where the victims are unknown to the killer, where the killer did not personally know anyone of them and had no personal grudge against them. This is opposed to the definition of the author of a non-random mass shooting such as where an ex-employee shot up their former workplace, or an ex-spouse shooting up their former spouse, their family and lovers. The big distinction is that the random mass killer just wants to rack up as big a body count as possible in the shortest amount of time, while the non-random mass killer wants to kill particular individuals.

But you knew that, or would have known that had you actually read the link before commenting on it.

(Posted elsewhere, sharing here.)

And from a different point of view: (Bear with the broad generalization here as I don’t watch any televised news media/source. I do much of my own research which yields greater accuracy of facts. Also have friends in low places with mad intel, one of which prompted me to throw this out there for consideration. Enjoy, or not.)

1. China has several different “standard issue/service” rifles among their various militaries, two of which come to mind are the Type 91, and the QBZ-95.

2. North Korea I’m pretty sure still uses a Kalashnikov variant of some type: (I.e. AK-47, AK-74, AKM, etc.)

3. Russia also still uses an AK or Kalashnikov variant.

4. At a slightly educated guess, I’m going to go out on a limb and state that I think the Syrians might also one of the above, or possibly even something based on the Galil platform, a type of which I’m pretty sure the Pakistanis have also used for quite some time.

5. Of our United States military, the 3 prominent/active service rifles that come to mind are the M-16 (and variants), M14, and the SCAR.

As you might have guessed, these are simply but a limited example of each nation’s possible armaments and each one (within reason) relatively comparable and capable to the next in terms of form/functionality. By all means research these at your leisure.

And now the point, which may or may not have already been discussed in here, and that is the simple fact that the United States of America can indeed be a great place to live, but it is also not immune to possible invasion or foreign occupation. Disagree? Learn to love strategy games, think of this planet as a giant game board of sorts, factor in all the key players (aka allies/enemies), add the trump cards, various technological knowledge and then throw away that crap that was labeled “information” given to you by one of the many mediated reality sources (aka ‘the news’) and you might just see how it is possible. Not probable (yet), but possible. Scenarios are somewhat endless if you’re intelligent enough to see the big picture of things and think in these strategic methods. (And remember, just like chess, many moves are often necessary if you want to win the game.)

Now, IF (note that’s a big one), one of these scenarios plays out and you’re again intelligent enough to realize it, you’d know that many of these possibilities includes the element wherein our military is currently and deeply engaged with one or more of the above mentioned factors. And forces will be stretched to quite frightening numbers, thus making it a haunting reality that YOU, just might have to fend for yourself in certain situations.

Well I don’t know about you, but my logic has suggested that as long as I am legally able to protect me and mine by arming myself with a semi-automatic firearm with similarities to those previously mentioned in this post…. I’m going to do so. (Training can indeed be fun as well as rewarding.) And remember folks, that “me/mine” aspect grows because the more successful the average American is against any form of tyranny, the sooner we can get back to our petty squabbles and arguments fought by the disillusioned and ill informed in online communities.

Have a great day, and game on everyone! :thumbsup:


Badger