Between the two of you, you've got a really interesting point. The shooting in the Amish school is a perfect illustration. The perpetrator said he chose that school specifically because it was an easy target.

If, by carrying guns, the Amish become less of an easy target, they also become less Amish.

Perhaps they would still be an easier target than say, a school in the Bronx. So countrysinger, your answer would seem to be that the Amish could become as well defended as the worst thugs in America in order that they not become victims.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Statistically, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning than injured in a school shooting.

School shootings just receive far more hype in the media.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

1,000 people per day move to my state. Per DAY! We're feeling it in many ways.

It is hard not to notice the sudden jump in murders.

Just a couple of days ago I read the local headlines and there were no less than 6 unrelated murders in a county with a population of just over half a million.

I told my husband it was time to think about moving out. He called me at lunch the next day and said "good news! I stayed up late to watch the 11:00 news and - no murders!". He was being sarcastic.
I said "hunny, they dragged a body out of a canal at about midnight last night, it was on TV when I was getting ready for work this morning."

Florida, particularly this county, is red, red, red. So the "democrat" argument does not apply.

I've been investigating the northwest - Washington, Oregon, etc... I checked the crime rates which are far better than in my area. Does that make the area a prime target by Countrysinger's logic?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I couldn't say. I'm not very up to speed on Austrailian politics or gun laws.

If Amish people choose not to arm themselves, that's their choice. But currently they don't have a choice in school.

I don't understand your last sentence. Are you implying that the worst thugs are the best defended?

I am suggesting that allowing people to defend themselves, specifically by not violating their 2nd amendment rights, will empower them not to become victims.

Florida is the Lightning Capital of the World, leading the nation in the number of deaths by lightning with 1,523 casualties over the space of 35 years. That's a little over 43 per year! Holy hell batman - I didn't realize how many there were. NOAA.
Florida Crime Rates
More people were murdered in two years in Florida than were killed by lightning in 35 years. 11.3 people per 100,000 are shot every year.

You know I'm a gun rights advocate but there is no sense glorifying gun rights in the face of the statistics. I still say guns don't kill people, people kill people. My own argument tells me there is something wrong with our culture that we can't control the problem.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I understand your argument. However, the implications are that if you intend not to become a victim you must arm yourself at least as well as the worst thugs in the country. Even if you don't know they're thugs - like the guy that killed the children in the Amish school.

It is every American's choice by law, to arm themselves. But is it every American's choice by practice? I think we're somewhere in between and has much to do with where you live but the Amish example is a scary one isn't it? You've merely illustrated that those who choose not to arm themselves can not be protected by neighbors who do or even by the police.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Thank you for the statistics, but they are irrelavent to the topic. You provided them in response to a statement by Matt Larson that "Statistically, you are far more likely to be struck by lightning than injured in a school shooting." The numbers you provided had nothing to do with guns, much less school shootings. Also, you did not provide a source for your figure of 11.3/100,000 people shot per year.

Even arming yourself does not completely prevent yourself from becoming a victim. Nothing can do that. My point is merely that it does not help, but rather makes the situation worse, to remove people's God-given right and ability to defend themselves.

I do not understand your second paragraph. It makes no sense. And I've illustrated nothing. Those who choose not to arm themselves certainly cannot count on others to do it for them, especially the police.

Thread title: Why so many multiple shootings in America?Opening Post: Yes, I have thoughts as to why that might be and they are at least as relevant as Matt's statistic comparing multiple shootings to lightning strikes.

Did you skip the last paragraph?

FLDEHelp yourself. There is every statistic you could hope for from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. I lost the page I retrieved that specific figure from but it's there.
Yes. Again, I understand your point. I'm merely pointing out a logical flaw in your argument. In places where people are allowed to carry weapons, murders still happen - thus my discussion about murder and not just school shootings. Perhaps you're right - that teachers should carry guns but I don't think that will solve the problem ultimately.

OK, let's see if I can make it more clear. Here's what I said: Theoretically, it is your right to own a gun whether it be to hunt, defend yourself from bad guys, or defend yourself against a corrupt government. You have indicated and even said, point blank, that we cannot rely on society or police to protect us from someone who wants to use their guns nefariously. Given your statement is true, then it is no longer a choice to own a gun if you intend to protect yourself from someone else who owns a gun. (Or own a tank to protect yourself from someone else who owns a tank, or a flame thrower, etc...)

I agree.

The point being, there is something wrong with a society that is so threatened that the "right" to own a gun becomes a "necessity".

When, in our 230 years as a sovereign country, have we been so concerned about our own citizens murdering our children while they attend school?
There is no need to compare the US to other nations, we have our own dignity by which we should measure.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

It is not the meaning of the second amendment or S8 of the constution to prohibit the wellnes of regulaton of people who keep and bear arms.

Are you implying that we would have more problems if people who keep and bear arms are well regulated?

Wellness of regulation? That makes no sense

Besides, people can not be regulated under the constitution; the militia is to be regulated. If you choose not to be in a militia, your actions cannot be regulated. Even if you choose to be in a militia, your actions outside of the militia cannot be regulated.

What makes you think people cannot be regulated under the constitution? Is there no provision for calling forth the militias of the several states? How about a general draft?

There is nothing in the constitution that says that people who keep and bear arms cannot be well regulated. In other words, people who keep and bear arms can be well regulated (the constituition provides for that power to the intersatate and the several states). It only depends on whether you consider any form of gun control outside of S8 and 2A to be a form of non-compliance with the constitution. Surely, no one would advocate eliminating all laws (not granted by S8 and 2A) regulating firearms without recourse to some mechanism for ensuring the domestic tranquility.

I did not say murders don't happen in places where weapons are allowed. You're misquoting me in order to produce a flaw in my argument. There's a big difference between that and merely pointing one out.

Teachers being allowed to be armed might not eradicate any and all school shootings. Though it would in fact solve the problem of the fact that they are denied their right and abiility to defend themselves. And that would deter the mass killing rampages.


I disagree. It's not a matter of societal corruption, but merely the world that we live in that defense, both personal and otherwise, is a necessety. Predators, tyrants, criminals, and politicians alike would all prefer you believe otherwise because they all prefer defenseless victims. But there's nothing inherently wrong with a society where one's right to defend himself is in place when it becomes necessary.

I would say its dates back to very early 60's, when the Spocksters, American Communists and Krushev got theier heads together to plan a takeover from within!

The 60's brought us the Hippie movement, Vietnam, the Division of America and Civil Rights, and also Schools were told to keep their hands off kids!

The 70's brought a slow War healing for some, and the Stalinists begin to find fault with any mention of God in Schools, and Abortion became popular!

The 80's bought a Leftist attack on the Parents, and how they disciplined their Children and how they were taught in School!

The 90's brought us Communist Bill and his Criminal Wife, and shortly after that the First School shooting started! Well that brought Columbine, the Govt's mass murder at Waco, the Treason, the attempt to remove God from America, and more school and Gang shootings, a POTUS with Sexual Criminal problems and Video Games that were graphic and murderous!!

Kids are out of control in America, and this is what the Communists wished for was Family Division and idiots that believed in Liberalism!


Now this is just a quick summary, but we have Gun Laws, but our former Criminal POTUS gave control to China of an Old Navy Yard in Oakland, to transport SKS autos into America and Kids hands!!

To Summarize, look no further than Commie Clinton and the Left in America for Todays Gun problems and Children running wild!!

There are no provision in the constitution that allows individuals to be regulated. Congress can regulate a militia, but that does not mean that its individual members can be regulated outside of the militia. If the constitution does not grant a power to the federal government, it doesn't have that power. The federal government can only do what it is allowed under the constitution, everything else is left to the states or the people.

The main point is that if people who keep and bear arms are required to participate in the militia, they will tend to be more responsible with their arms than a mob of people who keep and bear arms.

The 2A does not provide for a mob of people who keep and bear arms to ensure the security of a free state, but a militia of people who keep and bear arms to ensure the security of a free state. Why would a state want to regulate people who do not keep and bear arms in the same manner as people who do keep and bear arms?