Kid with a toy gun in Home Depot Parking lot?
Just heard there's a guy in the home depot lot with an assault rifle. Anyone hear anything??
Mim 
Booster90 
A good dayIf by Lehigh Valley Live it means this:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf/2015/10/police_search_for_gunman_find.html#incart_2box_lvl-homepage-featured
Then that's up the way at Mansfield Village, not Home Depot. And it was a kid.
GC If they charge this kid with something then that is ridiculous. If a kid pointed a toy gun at someone 20 years ago no one would care. We've become a paranoid society.
Metsman 
Mark Mc. 
Tommy Gunn Yes, a lot has changed. People are more paranoid and technology has made is possible to hear about every little thing that happens everywhere. It all still happened years ago, but everything wasn't blow up by media, put on Facebook or tweeted.
Boys and girls played army and cops and robbers all the time with toy guns that needed no orange tip. Nobody called the police and none of us were arrested or shot at. We were even allowed to take them to school. Heck, my husband and his friends used to take their hunting guns to school with them and put them in their lockers so they could hunt after school without having to stop back home first.
So yes, I agree, a lot has changed.
Calico696 And when you were a girl in school, you did not have to worry about invasions at your school of armed killers with guns and hundreds of bullets.
Umpqua College is the 45th school shooting this year.
It was the 142nd since Sandy Hook.
There was television and radio 20 years ago Calico --- or do you not remember.
Those were certainly sufficient to get the news out.
Yes, ALOT has changed.
Metsman needs a reality check!!! First toys guns for the kid, next the real thing and in our schools. Charge him.
Jersey Mom Perhaps you missed the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report that documents a continuing downward trend (going on 12 years now) of violent crime.
Pesky things, facts.
"There was television and radio 20 years ago Calico --- or do you not remember.
Those were certainly sufficient to get the news out."
Yes, there was TV. But back then you basically got local news. Nobody bothered reporting stuff that happened in Bum F*ck, Idaho. This was because the majority of the world didn't care to stick their nose in everybody's business like they do now.
Now you can't seem to get away with clipping your toenails at 3 am without the whole neighborhood knowing about it.
If little Jimmy next door disobeyed and you heard shouting and/or a smack. You minded your own business. Now people call DYFUS. Then it becomes, guess what.....NEWS. And then maybe little Jimmy gets put in foster care and becomes angry and unstable and then becomes a school shooter. Just maybe.
Maybe the lack of being able to discipline youth has caused them to act out. Just maybe.
Of course I'm no expert, just a lunatic since I'm pro-gun.
The gun had a complete orange front end and was obviously a toy in this instance.
But hey, bring in the local, state and federal troopers. Plus the swat and spec tactics, and the tanks.
Reggie Voter Why is it down with the NRA fighting every attempt to make it harder to get and use guns for crime? Maybe, maybe we are more paranoid because there is still a lot of gun violence. With gun ownership being so high you would think with all those "good" guys with guns that we would have even lower gun crime. Thanks Wayne.
Can't sneak anything past you Jersey Mom...
From the article:
"The fake weapon resembled an assault rifle with a banana-style magazine."
Get it?
I grew up in hunting family. We were always around guns as kids. We were taught to respect guns and learned early on that they are not toys. Toy guns were not permitted in our house and many of my friends had the same rules. It simply sends the wrong message about how serious gun safety is.
I'm all for gun ownership as long as it is responsible- I just don't think that is the case with most gun nuts these days!
MommyinGreen "But back then ( 20 years ago) you basically got local news" -- Calico
Baloney. You really believe if there was a mass shooting in a school it would not be reported?
"Of course I'm no expert, just a lunatic since I'm pro-gun" -- Calico
You said it !!!!!
Whether someone should have called in the kid with gun is hard to say but at least the investigation seems to have been handled well. Good job to all of the responding Police departments.
Bonv I was quoting the person from the other thread hapiest. He/she said that pro-gun people are lunatics.
You really need to stop insulting people and then whining when others attack you. Nowhere in my post did I insult you. I merely offered my opinion. You obviously have a strong dislike for me. Which you are entitled to have. I don't dislike you, I just disagree with much of what you post. That's why I offer a contrasting view if I have one. If you can't handle that, maybe online forums are not the place for you. Just a thought.
lets just dislike the young boy becouse he lives in Mansfield Village. can a child still play cowboys and indians ?
And I was quoting you, Calico
Do you really expect everyone to memorize everything anyone said on all the forum posts?
I don't dislike you either. I don't know you. But I disagree with alot of what you post too!
If you can't handle what people have to say, maybe *you* are the one who should not be on a forum.
Time for a beverage and some pop corn. Buckle up this is going to get good.
PS proud to be an NRA lifetime member.
CraftBeerBob I handle it fine. I don't resort to name calling like you do. You remember sticks and stones don't you? You can call me whatever you want, it won't alter my life. However, that doesn't make it less rude.
I wonder if Jersey Mom and hapiest are related..... LMAO
Aww .... still sad about calling yourself a lunatic?
"I wonder if Jersey Mom and happiest are related ......LMAO" --said Calico.
Very childish Calico.
I wonder if you are JeffersonRepublics little girl........
OMG, just read the story and boy oh boy, over reaction is an understatement. And I hate guns, but this was ridiculous. An adult pointing it, Ok scary. A young boy, really????
botheredbyuu2 
emaxxman 
Phil D. Yeah. There's not enough access. Let's just shelter them more rather than teach them properly!
I remember safely shooting rifles as a young teen in Boy Scouts. Nobody died.
I remember my dad letting me shoot his WWII rifles (8mm Mauser and M1 Carbine - an assault weapon by NJ standards) when I was even younger and we visited grandma's house in Ohio. Nobody died.
I remember my brother got his own shotgun when he was a teenager (I'm thinking 14 or so). Nobody died.
This publication is full of information and statistics -- one of them being:
"The presence of guns in the home increased an individual's risk of death by homicide by 90%"
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics
jeez, hapiest girl invokes my name, and I'm not even IN on this one!!
All my guns haven't killed anyone. All my father's guns never killed anyone. All my families guns never killed anyone. All my friends' guns never killed anyone.
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all those guns combined. So has a lot of other stuff...
JeffersonRepub The only person in my house who is at greater risk of homicide by firearm is the person that's NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
And for websites with facts, let's not forget guns SAVE lives as well....
http://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/
Wow, with odds like that it shouldn't take long for all 150+ million gun owners to be killed by their own guns...
Oh wait, that isn't happening.
Sure I mention you, JeffRepub ----- 'cause we know how often you speak about young girls .......
So here's on for you, JeffRep --
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-don't-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth
Tell you what dear- I'll read your link AFTER you read mine. A lot of stories to sift through.... I'll wait....
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics
I'm reposting this because --
This article seems like it ends quickly ---but keep scrolling down for many different sections containing more information and statistics.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/white-house-study-finds-guns-save-lives-consistently-lower-injury-rates-among-gun-using-crime-victims_06272013
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…
…
The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
To use an anti-gunner's argument...
"if we can save JUST ONE LIFE", it's worth it (to allow private citizens to protect themselves with firearms)
SHFT plan website ??????????
Bearing Arms website ????????????
You must be kidding.
Armedwithreason is pretty one dimension too, in case you hadn't noticed. But I have to agree that with a name like SHTF it's pretty obvious which slant you'll find there. Just saying.
justintime Ah... so you didn't actually READ the data. Typical.
Go READ the data. Study commissioned by OBAMA'S white house. Read ALL the data, not just the stuff you agree with, dear.
There's a link to the exact report... which JR quoted verbatim (that section starts on page 15).
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
justintime -
*armedwithreason* documents the various articles where the statistics come from.
That's the irony of it, Obama commissioned a report that found exactly the opposite of what he hoped... and quietly swept it under the rug.
5catmom The chart Mark put up is not very positive for gun ownership.
5catmom -- yours tells it like it is.
What chart?
You mean the paragraph that states defensive gun uses are *at least* as frequent as criminal gun uses, and victims that use guns in self defense exhibit fewer injuries than those that defend themselves by other means?
And data tables too!
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/countries/1W-US-GB-IT?display=default
So, somewhat in response to 5catmom's post... we can compare the US to other countries until we're all blue in the face... let's keep this simple and just look within our own borders over time.
Over the past 15 years, all crime has dropped, but murder in particular has gone down ~20%.
All the while, gun sales have gone up, approximately 100% (considering the vast majority of new gun sales require a background check, this is about as analogous as we'll get).
So... guns are the problem?
Yes Mark ---
......the paragraph you posted that says:
Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
......the paragraph you posted that says:
It is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public - concealed or open carry - may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this would cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use.
Which may be addressed in the rest of the report... it is 110 pages long after all.
It doesn't prove your point either.
Here is the link about the incident............a boy with a TOY..........talk about a thread going off topic a bit.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warren-county/index.ssf/2015/10/police_search_for_gunman_find.html#incart_2box_lvl-homepage-featured
littlelu There are LESS guns in America now.
That is why the crime & murder rate is down.
In 1977, 53.7% of American households had guns.
By 2014, only 32.4% of American households had a gun in the house.
From 1985 to 2014 the percentage of Americans owning a gun dropped by more than a quarter -- down to 22.4%
Source: A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America, Violence Policy Center (May 2015)
This and other statistics are available to read in the "smartgunlaws" website I posted several posts above this one.
:-)
First, let's just start with raw #'s where you forgot to account for the US population increase over the years...
# of gun owners in 1977 = 220M (population) X .537 = 118.14M owners
# of gun owners in 2014 = 318.9M (population) X .324 = 103.32M owners
So, at *worst* there are ~13% fewer owners (by quantity).
Now, let's remember that Gallup took a similar poll (your #'s are from GSS), and found that 42% of homes owned firearms in 2012 (which would be 131M, an increase in the quantity).
But 42% is still a decline from 53% you might say. Well look at Gallup over time... there's a bit of inaccuracy there (as in any poll) as I doubt the ownership rate swings this wildly year to year.
So I would say it's wishful thinking on your part that there are fewer guns and gun owners in the US, when the # of NICS checks has absolutely skyrocketed over the years.
You're the one with the wishful thinking.
You can try to wiggle the numbers all you like but the information I posted is accurate and correct.
To top it off, there are more people actually *carrying* guns in public now than ever before (and the murder rate continues to fall).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all
Of course this article gives a few token paragraphs to a gun-control group that wrings its hands in frustration (but provided no data and declined to respond for comment). Other than that, gun sales are up, gun owners are up, gun carriers are up, crime is down.
"You can try to wiggle the numbers all you like but the information I posted is accurate and correct."
I didn't know simple multiplication is "wiggling" the numbers.
You can post (i.e. paste) information all you want... but that's all you do. You make absolutely no attempt to even scratch the surface to understand what the numbers mean (or the inherent flaws/weaknesses in any statistical analysis).
Baloney Mark!
So YOU are the only one allowed to post information?
Like that last one --- it is just some newspaper article written by some journalist and the quotes in the article are from people associated with "Gun Owners of America" and the "National Shooting Sports Foundation"
LMAO
I've had enough of this. I'm going to go read a good book instead of the garbage you post.
I never said you weren't allowed to post links. Just understand and analyze the underlying information before you do.
You posted a single link to a single poll and called it a day... I took the information you lazily pasted, explained some flaws, compared it to a poll from another (very well respected) organization that had differing results, looked at those results over time (not just two points), and tried to reconcile that with other data from NICS.
See the difference? It's not hard... it only took me 10 minutes.
"I'm going to go read a good book"
May I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
It might help you to actually understand why/how certain data is presented that may be misleading (either intentional or unintentional), so you don't just blindly follow a twitter/facebook chart without question.
hapiest girl - 12 yr old out here, not a threat. In the inner city, yes. Stop over reacting.
Interesting video how the US has more guns per capita by a longshot than any other country on the planet, yet doesn't even crack the top 100 as a country for homicide rate. And other stuff....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Mark, statistics don't lie, people do. You should know that better than most :>)
People have looked back fondly to the carefree days of our youth, playing guns, cowboys and Indians or, in my case, we played in an area we called The Ho Chi Ming Trail showing the changes of the times and how the national psyche is formed by violence. Ah, the memories. Look at the chart. Perhaps the "statistics" shows why we're a little jumpy. Sure, murders, the vast preponderance by gun, have fallen dramatically since Obama took office :>) but are still double that of the days of our youth.
The thing about gun violence is the ripple effect on the national psyche. Especially mass murders since they tend to pray on the innocent in our peaceful gathering places, workplaces and schools. We no longer feel safe. We are right to be afraid, we are killing each other with guns far too often, even with declining numbers. In the free world of developed nations, we have the highest homicide rate, the most guns, and the most gun murders. We live in a similar fear as those in the third world.
From The Washington Post wonk blog (statistical groupies):
There have been 45 school shootings so far this year, statistically speaking. We have had 294 mass shootings with 4 or more killed or wounded. We have had 10,000 deaths via the gun. We have had 20,000 wounded. We have had 40,000 gun incidents
" Eleven wounded in a Georgia barroom. Six shot outside a Tulsa nightclub. A pregnant mom and grandmother killed, an infant wounded in Chicago."
"We've gone no more than eight days without one of these incidents this year. On six days in September, there were three mass shootings or more."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/01/2015-274-days-294-mass-shootings-hundreds-dead/
IMHO we have grown comfortably numb to being at the top of the list of developed countries for routinely killing each other with a gun.
Some say the gun is not the problem, it's people. We just need attitude adjustment.
Some say there are less households with guns since the 1970's. This is true. Of course, the percentage of households with hunters has dramatically fallen as well while there is a corresponding increase in urban living.
Some say there are more guns than ever in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Chances are if you are a gun owner, you have 3 or more guns. "From a poll of gun owners conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Question: “How many guns do you or does a member of your family own?”
Number NRA Member Non-NRA
1 gun 18% 25%
2 guns 16% 20%
3-5 guns 26% 30%
6-9 guns 17% 15%
10 or more guns 24% 11%"
(Frank Lutz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns)
Some say the answer is to arm everyone, both concealed and open completing our quest to travel back to safer times of old.
I say it's time for responsible gun owners to stand up and tell the NRA to make our current gun laws universal and effective. Stand up and protect all of us. Do not continue down the road of making America an armed camp in every school, library, work and meeting place. More guns is a solution, it is not the solution.
Quit weasel-wording and stand up to make some positive changes.
strangerdanger "Man, there are some bored people on a Saturday night."
Lol... it has been pouring rain here all weekend.
Ah, because I'm so prone to answer honestly about guns from a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a group so respected that it's had several of its members convicted of crimes and had to change its name twice...)
"Some say the answer is to arm everyone"
Where did anyone say that... anywhere on this forum. We're just saying allow each person to make their own decision on whether they want to be armed or not, and carry or not. We DO say that if you are going to create a "gun free zone", a sign hanging on the fence is insufficient, and the owners of that property or location should then be held criminally liable if they do not provide sufficient security in it's place.
Frank Lutz is a Republican Pollster who should not be impugned based on who is paying the bill. Would you like other sources? Given that there are less households with guns, we buy more than 8,000,000.00 guns per year, and it takes a really long time for a gun to wear out, the concept that there are less households with more guns is pretty common sense.
Sorry, was not confining myself to the forum.
This is the pic of the suspected shooter's arsenal and combat gear from the Mansfield PD Facebook page.
Looks like a toy gun to me.
Start with a fearful, media-addled populace, throw in a bunch of federally grant-funded local PDs itching to go SWAT at the slightest provocation (there were 4 local PD's in addition to the State PD responding) and you have the makings of a potentially deadly mess.
Years ago they probably would have sent a patrol car out to investigate, if one happened to be available. It's pretty sad to see what America has turned into.
jjmonth4 "We no longer feel safe. We are right to be afraid,"
There you go again, pushing *your* fears on everyone else. Not everyone feels as you do, especially those who prioritize their fears based on reality rather than emotion. Surely we don't need to go through the list of other, much more likely causes of death, do we?
Just what are the odds of being killed in a mass shooting again?
And just because its a problem, albeit one with very low probabilities of happening, doesn't mean you get to inhibit the other 350 million of us.
Just curious, do you read anthing I write? It's not like this hasn't come up before.
Oh, and btw Frank Lutz is one of the last people I would choose to hold in high regard due to his long history of leading the audience to pre defined conclusions.
Yeah, it's just me.
In your quest for the tasty sound byte, you left out: "we are killing each other with guns far too often, even with declining numbers." The reason.
Our top five fears.
Now if you're net surfing for jobs in a internet café and a clown with a gun comes in......
strangerdanger
I'm guessing that you made a typo when you stated "we played in an area we called The Ho Chi Ming Trail". because most of us who were alive during that era, especially those who had their father and relatives over there, as well as many of their friends' fathers (since my Dad was in the USMC) know that a) nobody was "playing" over there and many were being severely injured, both mentally and physically and b) it's spelled "Ho Chi Minh". It was not actually a physical trail, that could be traced via GPS now, but rather a network of trails that were a nebulous connection of trails and streams, etc. whatever would allow the carrying of arms and support from China through North Vietnam into South Vietnam in order to supply the Viet Cong.
Perhaps you were there, perhaps not, I don't know, however I don't think you should have been making light of it. Now if you want to mention suicide and murder rates (by handgun or other means) as a result of people having PTSD from having "played" in places such as Japan, Africa and Europe in WWII, Korea during that conflict, Southeast Asia during the Vietnam Conflict/War, and the Middle East during both Wars and compare those rates against that of the "general" population, I'd be interested in that statistic, as well as how many homicides are as a direct or indirect result of drug and gang related activity. After all, the perpetrators of those crimes have at least one firearm in their "home" as well.
hapiest girl
The first required reading in my Statistics 101 class in college was a book called "How To Lie With Statistics"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
If anyone would like to read it, here's a pdf version:
http://www.horace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/How-to-Lie-With-Statistics-1954-Huff.pdf
Statistics CAN lie, based on the agenda of the person taking the sample(s) and the way the statistics are presented. Indeed, that IS based on the human(s) who prepared them, so it is all human related, so in a way you are right, but if one doesn't look at related factors and how time periods and other data are skewed by condensing or expanding the x or y value on the chart, then you can push people into making wrong decisions or come to the conclusions the preparer wants, rather than what the data itself would suggest.
So what's your point, PhilD?
Mark Mc. toys with his own version of statistics.
So his statistics can't lie????
Of course his "statistics" are self-serving.
And many people will not even take him seriously because of the kind of person he is.
Completely condescending.
Please explain how I "toyed" with statistics.
I clearly sourced multiple studies and explained the math I used.
I think Phil's point is very clear, but you just have to unplug your fingers from your ears to hear it.
The point is that this is more a subject of emotion than anything else. Everyone can find numbers to support their position and be "right", whatever that is.
Mariann You know what? I've kept quiet for a long time, but I can't keep this to myself anymore. Throw around whatever statistics you want. This was supposed to be a FREE country. We were supposed to be FREE to protect ourselves and our property. If I'm home alone with my kids, and my husband is away on business and an intruder enters my home, what do I have to defend myself and my children? What should I be allowed to have? Shouldn't I be the one to decide? This country wasn't started so we could have our decisions taken from us. What has happened?
People are more content to be sheep, to be told what vaccines their kids must have, to be told whether or not their child has to be in a car seat, what KIND of car seat their child needs to be in, not to be able to defend themselves and their families, whether their food is pasteurized...I can go in and on.
If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. Leave the rest of us alone. Mind your own business. If we all carried, these shootings wouldn't be happening because the minute one of these lunatic shooters pulled their weapon out someone would have them down or they would be too afraid to even try to carry out a mass shooting because they would know someone else in the room would stop them before they even started.
Why do you think these mass shooting weren't happening long ago? You think it is because people have changed? Think again. The laws have changed and people have lost the right to protect themselves.
Jane doe hapiest girl
I'm not trying to be "Completely condescending." as you state. This is why I normally don't get involved in these types of conversations because they become highly emotional issues and people generally get blinded to one another's arguments and things get totally uncivil. I was just trying to point out to you that you state that Mark Mc. is misrepresenting statistics, while you seem to have all the confidence in the world that the people whom you quote are using statistics appropriately.
Unless one looks at the statistics with a critical eye and unemotionally, it is often difficult to properly judge fact, if indeed there are facts to be gleaned, rather than agendas based on false reasoning. Many times the "facts" are presented in a manner to support predetermined results based on what the study was meant to find, based on the prejudices of the sponsors, organizers or conductors of the study. That of course goes for ALL studies, not just the ones that the people that you mention support.
ALL studies must be looked at with a critical eye, since, especially in emotional issues such as this, people will believe that which "their side" quotes without looking at the sources of data or information, as well as how the information is presented. I didn't realize that Mark did quote the same book that I mentioned as part of my Math curriculum, but I did also give a link to a pdf of the actual book which is well worth reading by everyone.
Personally, I'm somewhat in the middle of the issue as I can understand the arguments of both sides. I'm admittedly not entirely neutral, as I've examined worldwide studies before as well and come to my own personal conclusions based on what I've found and observed, rather than by what my "gut" may think is right.
On a personal note, I have a friend in SC, near Charlotte, NC. She mentioned that other females had been happy to have been able to get their carry permit for defense, just in case they were needed. She mentioned to me that she had thought about it, but was unsure whether or not she would be able to shoot someone else, even in defense of herself and her children. I told her that if unless she was SURE that she could pull the trigger if needed in an emergency, then she should take personal security classes instead, as in my opinion she had no business carrying a firearm. Serious ones, not "Tae Bo", etc., but rather ones that develop your "situational awareness" (something completely lacking in many) and use strategies such as use of pepper spray, keychain kobuton, "found" weapons, etc.
After watching NatGeo channel's program on dangerous gangs and the footholds they've made into everyday America, I think it's more likely that one would find that they are responsible for many more deaths than any school shooters. Granted one could say that it's all only other gang members that are killed, but one only needs to watch the news to see all the "collateral damage" of gang and "serious drug" related activity. It's not just gang members being killed, many innocents are as well, who may have had a great impact on this world, had they lived!
I also think that we should be looking more at the way we treat the mentally ill and those with issues such as PTSD, as well as see what action is needed in the schools regarding bullying and online bullying to find what people are more likely to carry out such atrocities. It seems to me that many of these people are not at all civic-minded and are more narcissistic in behavior. A bullied (or one who is paranoid & perceives they are bullied) narcissist is likely a very dangerous person.
PhilD --- I was not referring to you as being condescending --- I was talking about Mark Mc.
Anyway, you made some good points.
However, in the end, statistics don't really matter that much. What does matter is that too many innocent lives are being taken by guns.
I was appalled when someone (either on this thread or the other -- no time to look for it now ---) stated that the news first said 17 people were killed. Then that person went on to say it was just 10.
*** 10.***
Whether it's one or a thousand, it's too many.
Does that count the preschoolers (or younger) that are flashbanged BY the police?
# of Preschoolers and toddlers killed by plastic bags and blankets (suffocation): 1140
# of Police Officers killed by plastic bags and blankets: ??
www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2013-a.gif
Those of you upset over gun control ....should look at statistics of violence involving hammers...focusing your efforts there would be better for all.
Steven 
Bessie remember the college was a gun free school zone, where were the police & security , school staff & students could have been armed and less a disaster would have happened
5catmom
Actually Mark Mc.'s Graphic addresses what I was going to mention. Police have the advantage of "bulletproof vests", preschoolers do not, nor could they be protected properly by one.
I remember back in the 80's people were touting how they were buying "bulletproof caps" for their children and all sorts of other "bulletproof" outerwear. That was a decidedly emotional and unnecessary waste of funds on their part. I will not describe why exactly, except to say that small children do not yet have the rigidity of an adult skeleton, nor do they have the mass behind it and I'll leave it at that because the thought of it is disgusting to me.
I mourn the loss of ANY innocent life and indeed wish that we never lose any more of our children to drugs, gun or ANY other type of violence (and there are many other types, including parental abuse), or to cancer, car accident, etc. However, I don't believe that removing guns from our society is the answer. I believe addressing the root causes of gun violence IS, whether that be from gang and other activities associated with hardcore drug distribution and dealing, mental health issues, including PTSD, severe depression (no matter what the source), and whatever else, including the over coddling of SOME of today's youth, especially those who have developmental issues, paranoia and narcissism together.
There are no simple or easy answers and to pretend there is, such as just "remove the guns" is disingenuous. There are drug companies out there that pay immense amounts of money to advertise their wares on TV, the internet and other means, but listen to some of the side effects including "severe depression and thoughts of suicide". Should they really be publicly marketing "to the people" who want a quick fix of their ills, no matter what the cost to their mental state.
We already have antibiotic-resistant strains of "superbug", due to people insisting that they get antibiotics immediately upon having a small sore throat which may have nothing to do with germs treatable by antibiotic. Marketing to the people, rather than to doctors (and by the way, Canada who has lower prescription costs does NOT allow that type of marketing, as per a friend who was a Pharmacy Tech there) only results in people taking a pill to "fix" one "ill" only to be possibly mentally screwed up by the drugs?
Prescription (actually overprescription) of drugs to combat various mental issues in children to make them more "manageable", without concern for the future consequences, especially if that child didn't actually need a mind-altering substance totally befuddles me. A good number of people on them report feeling as "zombies", which is why they sometimes stop taking them, so they can actually "feel" life rather than continue in that state. How much damage may have been wrought by usage and dependency on the drugs themselves? Those are the ones legally prescribed!
Enough of my "rant". I'm just saying that we have MUCH deeper issues than "guns" and THOSE issues are the ones that need solving.
positive Honestly I've have not formed an opinion on pro or anti guns. However I can appreciate 5cats opinion as well as Phil's.
Hapiest the way you have been retaliating leaves me to believe that you get off on arguing and you have to get the last word (insult) in. If I only knew better I wouldn't have stuck up for you on the other thread. My bad...
positive,
I don't "get off on arguing" at all. If you knew me you would know that is the furthest opposite of my personality.
I love people, animals, and I value all life. I feel strongly about this and live by my beliefs.
Unfortunately when people jump on me I tend to jump back.
I am also perplexed that you think I am "retaliating" but don't think others are?
Regardless,
the last thing I want to be like are those people here who have irritating or insulting personalities. Perhaps my reaction to them could be better controlled.
Perhaps we could ALL do better.
I also value all life and love animals - people on a case by case basis and I agree - we could all do better
Skippy I agree we can all do better. I'm no better than anyone, just trying (and I emphasize trying) to be a decent person.
I understand what you are saying hapiest, but my point is eventhough you were insulted..insulting back does not make you the better person, it just puts you on the same level as the insulter.
Sometimes ignoring and disregarding is your best defense. Just maybe....
" Please explain how I "toyed" with statistics." In the debate on guns we all toy with statistics because there aren't any conclusive statistics at the current time. Like I said, statistics don't like people do. The numbers are usually correct. The interpretation and inference is debatable. Thus the debate rages.
For example, we know we have more guns than other developed nations, we know we have a higher homicide rate, mostly by guns, than other developed nations. We don't know the correlation between the two. The same can be said for the statistics of having more guns and a corresponding homicide rate reduction. There's as much correlation for that as saying we have a homicide rate reduction because ObamaCare was passed. Until the NRA supports using Federal budget to run appropriate statistical studies, all we have is raw number counts without correlations between variables. The NRA has steadfastly and actively squashed all attempts to secure said budget dollars.
I think BroDog noted the US is like 110 out of 218 countries in terms of homicide rate, mostly by guns, deducing that we are in the middle of the pack. I looked at the same data and when I parsed it out by developed nations only, extracting third world countries, war zones, etc.; I found us to be dead last. Same statistics, different conclusions.
From the Department of Expediency:
"Some say the answer is to arm everyone" (SD)
"Where did anyone say that... anywhere on this forum" (Mark)
"If we all carried, these shootings wouldn't be happening" (Jane Doe)
Well, that didn't take long.....:>)
HapGirl: my, you do take umbrage with everyone and everything. With regards to Vietnam, thanks for the backgrounder and yes, we all lost friends and relations to that conflict. However, lambasting me as a young boy who hadn't even reached double digits in age seems a tad harsh. At the time, US deaths in Vietnam were around 100; the Gulf of Tonkin incident had not started the war build-up in earnest, it was still a "good cause." Trust me when I say I was early in the protest against the war and still have a few scars I bear for that.
I would hazard to say at this point, if one has to "brand" the type of "guns" they were playing on the pc meter, that we were much more politically correct than if we were playing cowboys and Indians. And at that age, that's how we spelled it. But OK, I stand guilty of miss-spent youth.
Bemused "I looked at the same data and when I parsed it out by developed nations only, extracting third world countries, war zones, etc.; I found us to be dead last. Same statistics, different conclusions."
If you are taking that analytical route, you should also parse out all of the violence in our inner cities, because they are, for all intents and purposes, third-world war zones, no?
ianimal strangerdanger -
don't know what you are talking about. I did not write anything about Vietnam -- or about you.
strangerdanger -
I just looked through this entire thread.
I did not write anything about you or Vietman.
Got it. It was phild who wrote both of us in the same love note. Thus his salutation to you looks like your signature to me.
awe, strangerdanger,
"my funny valentine" ...... you're my favorite work of art.
;-)
Commenting is no longer available.