Another Shooting, But No News Coverage

[Figmo Bohica]

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.


Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php)

[Taltarzac725]

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.


Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php)

Read the article.

And some national news outlets did cover it. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

[graciegirl]

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.


Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php)

I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to surpress news of this sort.


I guess maybe some think it is heartening but it sounds like more bad news to me.

[Taltarzac725]

I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to surpress news of this sort.


I guess maybe some think it is heartening but it sounds like more bad news to me.


"At one point, the suspect fired at a San Antonio Police Department patrol car, Antu said.

'He was shooting at a marked unit,' Antu said. 'He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.'

After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.

'She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,' Antu said.

Tara Grace, who was getting a drink from the concession stand when the shooting began, ran into the bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other patrons to avoid the mayhem.

'We thought we were going to die,' she said."


The article kind of makes it sound like this man was trying to get himself killed by a cop but few had a clue about what to do.


Read more: Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GdBn0VYv)


I found it reported in national news sources. It's an AP (Associated Press) story. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/

[Bonny]

I saw this on the news. There was coverage.

[Taltarzac725]

I saw this on the news. There was coverage.

I did not see it but the Associated Press did pick it up. I (and many others) used to index PR Newswire for Information Access Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PR_Newswire This looks like something that the National Media were aware of through PR Newswire and probably other sources but the facts of the San Antonio shooting look rather confusing when you do research on them.

San Antonio Movie Theater Shooting: Gunman Shoots 1 In Theater Parking Lot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting_n_2315139.html)

[buggyone]

[QUOTE=Figmo Bohica;601636]On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

_______________

After the Aurora theater shooting, there were many posters who commented that IF moviegoers had pistols of their own, the crazy shooter would have been killed in a barrage of bullets fired at him. I do not know if Colorado has a lot of people carrying concealed weapons. I am figuring that Texas (especially San Antonio) has lots of people carrying concealed weapons even in a theater. It was an off duty police officer who shot the crazed shooter - and I believe most jurisdictions require off duty officers to carry a pistol - and it was NOT one of the moviegoers who shot the crazed shooter.

It was a well-trained police officer who shot and NOT a bunch of wannabee cowboys not used to shooting under stress and no telling where the cowboys' bullets would have ended up. It could have been massive collateral damage.

[Taltarzac725]

[QUOTE=Figmo Bohica;601636]On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:

_______________

After the Aurora theater shooting, there were many posters who commented that IF moviegoers had pistols of their own, the crazy shooter would have been killed in a barrage of bullets fired at him. I do not know if Colorado has a lot of people carrying concealed weapons. I am figuring that Texas (especially San Antonio) has lots of people carrying concealed weapons even in a theater. It was an off duty police officer who shot the crazed shooter - and I believe most jurisdictions require off duty officers to carry a pistol - and it was NOT one of the moviegoers who shot the crazed shooter.

It was a well-trained police officer who shot and NOT a bunch of wannabee cowboys not used to shooting under stress and no telling where the cowboys' bullets would have ended up. It could have been massive collateral damage.

From what I read there was a lot of shooting going on and very few of these shots hit anything.

Not sure of the facts though as the articles I looked at are all over the place as to what actually happened.


I am aware that in the Old West the gunfighters had huge reputations because they could remain calm and aim carefully while shooting at others shooting back in a careless manner. Most people though armed could not remain calm.

[paulandjean]

Hope 2013 brings in a new year, without all of the talk of guns and gun controls.

[Serenoa]

You make it sound like the off-duty deputy was possibly there just to enjoy a movie, perhaps..... and made the split second decision to engage the shooter. She was there working SECURITY. She did her job as she has been trained by the sheriff's dept, & I'm glad she did. This was not some common citizen with a concealed carry permit.

"Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sherriff's Office, said the shooting began at a nearby China Garden and “carried on into the theater.”

At one point, the suspect fired at a San Antonio Police Department patrol car, Antu said.

“He was shooting at a marked unit,” Antu said. “He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.”

After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.

“She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu said."

(bold accent added by me)

Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Police-investigate-gunfire-at-movie-theater-4122668.php)

[billethkid]

some can continue to hop, wish, day dream or what ever....the gun vs anti gun argument....not discussion.....ARGUMENT....for years and the turn of a new year will have no impact on the continuation of the argument.

There may be many more of us who are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation. To pander on and on about how many are or are not is as productive as determining who washes their hands after using the restroom!!!! That exercise solves nothing nor adds value either.

btk

[buggyone]

"There may be many more of us who are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation."

If you are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation, you would be a welcome addition to the gun carrying community. A person who just carries but is not trained in stressful shooting situations is a liability and a danger to those around the situation.

The wannabee cowboys and wannabee policemen are hazards.

[Rebel Pirate]

“So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.” Figmo Bohica

“I found it reported in national news sources.” Taltarzac725

Yes, it was reported in the national press. But most significantly, the Newtown shooting received almost continuous coverage in print, broadcast, and online media, while the San Antonio shooting was reported sporadically in the press. I personally had no knowledge of the San Antonio shooting until reading this post.

“I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to suppress news of this sort.” Graciegirl

Agreed – I don’t think there’s a conspiracy of news organizations to suppress news.

However, I do believe that one’s world view influences what one thinks is news worthy. Almost all the news coverage of the Newtown tragedy includes an implication that new federal legislation restricting gun ownership (i.e., better gun control) is the universal antidote to mass shootings/killings. And since the San Antonio news story supports a different narrative (the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun) most media deem it not news worthy...at least in terms of volume and amplitude of the coverage.

What about mentally ill people being one of the principal causes of mass killings where guns are simply their weapon of choice? Think back to many of the most recent, news-worthy shootings; many of these shootings were the work of mentally-ill individuals.

Do you remember several decades back when mentally ill people were routinely institutionalized? What happened? Well, society has undergone a long-term change called deinstitutionalization. The following passage between the **** is from Wikipedia.
*******************************
Deinstitutionalization is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.

Deinstitutionalization works in two ways: the first focuses on reducing the population size of mental institutions by releasing patients, shortening stays, and reducing both admissions and readmission rates; the second focuses on reforming mental hospitals' institutional processes so as to reduce or eliminate reinforcement of dependency, hopelessness, learned helplessness, and other maladaptive behaviors.

According to psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, deinstitutionalization has been an overall benefit for most psychiatric patients, though many have been left homeless and without care. The deinstitutionalization movement was initiated by three factors:
• A socio-political movement for community mental health services and open hospitals;
• The advent of psychotropic drugs able to manage psychotic episodes;
• A financial imperative to shift costs from state to federal budgets.

According to American psychiatrist Loren Mosher, most deinstitutionalization in the USA took place after 1972, as a result of the availability of SSI, long after the antipsychotic drugs were used universally in state hospitals.

According to psychiatrist and author Thomas Szasz, deinstitutionalization is the policy and practice of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalized mental patients from state mental hospitals into many different kinds of de facto psychiatric institutions funded largely by the federal government. These federally subsidized institutions began in the United States and were quickly adopted by most Western governments. The plan was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Act as a part of John F. Kennedy's legislation and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1963, mandating the appointment of a commission to make recommendations for "combating mental illness in the United States".

In many cases the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the Western world from the 1960s onward has translated into policies of "community release". Individuals who previously would have been in mental institutions are no longer continuously supervised by health care workers. Some experts, such as E. Fuller Torrey, have considered deinstitutionalization to be a failure, while some consider many aspects of institutionalization to have been worse.
*******************************
Another world view is to judge everything using the “black or white” model, i.e., it’s good or bad. The alternative world view is to recognize that everything (every product, every decision, every political system, and every (fill in the blank)) has both pros and cons.

Deinstitutionalization is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Deinstitutionalization is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

Gun ownership is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Gun ownership is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

SO, is deinstitutionalization or gun ownership the cause of gun violence? Or is it possible that both deinstitutionalization and gun ownership are both factors in mass shootings? Is it possible that neither is THE cause of gun violence?

Is it possible that over-simplification (gun ownership is the cause of gun violence) is not helpful to understanding and solving a complex social issue?...but that it DOES support an agenda promoted by many national leaders and media organizations?

Is it possible that the nature of the media (commercial success of for-profit news organizations is driven by the need for catchy headlines and appeal to a mass-audience) contributes to the over-simplification of complex issues?

[Taltarzac725]

“So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.” Figmo Bohica

“I found it reported in national news sources.” Taltarzac725

Yes, it was reported in the national press. But most significantly, the Newtown shooting received almost continuous coverage in print, broadcast, and online media, while the San Antonio shooting was reported sporadically in the press. I personally had no knowledge of the San Antonio shooting until reading this post.

“I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to suppress news of this sort.” Graciegirl

Agreed – I don’t think there’s a conspiracy of news organizations to suppress news.

However, I do believe that one’s world view influences what one thinks is news worthy. Almost all the news coverage of the Newtown tragedy includes an implication that new federal legislation restricting gun ownership (i.e., better gun control) is the universal antidote to mass shootings/killings. And since the San Antonio news story supports a different narrative (the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun) most media deem it not news worthy...at least in terms of volume and amplitude of the coverage.

What about mentally ill people being one of the principal causes of mass killings where guns are simply their weapon of choice? Think back to many of the most recent, news-worthy shootings; many of these shootings were the work of mentally-ill individuals.

Do you remember several decades back when mentally ill people were routinely institutionalized? What happened? Well, society has undergone a long-term change called deinstitutionalization. The following passage between the **** is from Wikipedia.
*******************************
Deinstitutionalization is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.

Deinstitutionalization works in two ways: the first focuses on reducing the population size of mental institutions by releasing patients, shortening stays, and reducing both admissions and readmission rates; the second focuses on reforming mental hospitals' institutional processes so as to reduce or eliminate reinforcement of dependency, hopelessness, learned helplessness, and other maladaptive behaviors.

According to psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, deinstitutionalization has been an overall benefit for most psychiatric patients, though many have been left homeless and without care. The deinstitutionalization movement was initiated by three factors:
• A socio-political movement for community mental health services and open hospitals;
• The advent of psychotropic drugs able to manage psychotic episodes;
• A financial imperative to shift costs from state to federal budgets.

According to American psychiatrist Loren Mosher, most deinstitutionalization in the USA took place after 1972, as a result of the availability of SSI, long after the antipsychotic drugs were used universally in state hospitals.

According to psychiatrist and author Thomas Szasz, deinstitutionalization is the policy and practice of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalized mental patients from state mental hospitals into many different kinds of de facto psychiatric institutions funded largely by the federal government. These federally subsidized institutions began in the United States and were quickly adopted by most Western governments. The plan was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Act as a part of John F. Kennedy's legislation and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1963, mandating the appointment of a commission to make recommendations for "combating mental illness in the United States".

In many cases the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the Western world from the 1960s onward has translated into policies of "community release". Individuals who previously would have been in mental institutions are no longer continuously supervised by health care workers. Some experts, such as E. Fuller Torrey, have considered deinstitutionalization to be a failure, while some consider many aspects of institutionalization to have been worse.
*******************************
Another world view is to judge everything using the “black or white” model, i.e., it’s good or bad. The alternative world view is to recognize that everything (every product, every decision, every political system, and every (fill in the blank)) has both pros and cons.

Deinstitutionalization is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Deinstitutionalization is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

Gun ownership is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Gun ownership is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

SO, is deinstitutionalization or gun ownership the cause of gun violence? Or is it possible that both deinstitutionalization and gun ownership are both factors in mass shootings? Is it possible that neither is THE cause of gun violence?

Is it possible that over-simplification (gun ownership is the cause of gun violence) is not helpful to understanding and solving a complex social issue?...but that it DOES support an agenda promoted by many national leaders and media organizations?

Is it possible that the nature of the media (commercial success of for-profit news organizations is driven by the need for catchy headlines and appeal to a mass-audience) contributes to the over-simplification of complex issues?

Except that there are 57.5 or so million people who have some kind of mental illness each year according to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=About_Mental_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=53155 And, if you read much of Thomas Szasz' work he seemed to be against the type of psychiatry you would find practiced in many institutions. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/health/dr-thomas-szasz-psychiatrist-who-led-movement-against-his-field-dies-at-92.html?_r=1&

Guns of a military type can kill many people in very little time. Is this just not common sense to try to limit access to these weapons to anyone who might pick up a weapon of this type to commit any kind of crime be it a robbery, hijacking, drive by shooting, assassination, mass murder, domestic dispute involving violence.

And, that San Antonio shooting makes it sound like no body really knew what they were doing at least the actual reports from San Antonio look like that. Maybe not the reports that have a huge political spin on them.

[Rebel Pirate]

Guns of a military type can kill many people in very little time. Is this just not common sense to try to limit access to these weapons to anyone who might pick up a weapon of this type to commit any kind of crime be it a robbery, hijacking, drive by shooting, assassination, mass murder, domestic dispute involving violence.

Let’s start with what we are trying to accomplish...what’s our goal. If the goal is to gut the second-amendment, or ban private gun ownership, then I’m against it. If the goal is to eliminate (or dramatically reduce) deaths from guns (whether assault guns or regular guns) that fall into the wrong hands by passing some restrictive legislation, then I’d support that initiative. However, I don’t believe an assault weapons ban would accomplish that.

Prohibition lasted from 1920-1933. Despite the overall consumption of alcohol declining by half in the 1920s, Prohibition was repealed. “Anti-prohibitionists criticized the alcohol ban as an intrusion of mainly rural Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant and Catholic everyday life.” (Wikipedia) So the national social experiment failed despite resulting in a dramatic reduction in the consumption of alcohol.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) lasted from 1994-2004. In this former U.S. law, the legal term “assault weapon” included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (like AK-47s and Uzis) AND other semi-automatic firearms because they had a minimum set of cosmetic features. The gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons continued to be sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.

So, how did the AWB work out? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the assault weapon ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” Thus, despite a desire to conclude that gun controls reduced gun violence, two independent federal entities (CDCP and NRC) were unable to reach that conclusion. It might seem like common sense; however data-based decisions are better than intuition-based (“common sense”) decisions.

Opponents of the AWB claim that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claims the ban was effective because "it was drying up supply and driving up prices." This argument of raising street prices for a controlled substance has been used before...it’s the primary argument of the war on drugs. “In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring ‘The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.’ Years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed." (Wikipedia) So, the common-sense approach of drying up supply and driving up prices has been discredited in another context.

So, we’ve come full circle. Depending on the specifics, I’d be willing to support a legislative initiative that had some chance of reducing gun violence. But, the same old AWB isn’t going to be more effective now than it was from 1994-2004.

I’d support federal legislation that limits the rights of certain citizens to possess guns of any type. How about no guns (purchase or possession) for anyone who has ever taken psychotropic drugs or was ever admitted to an insane asylum; all convicted felons; anyone convicted of any legal offense (whether crime or misdemeanor) where ANY type of weapon was used or threatened, including juveniles whose record is eventually expunged? Then, we have to be willing to enforce those laws.

[Russ_Boston]

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

[Golfingnut]

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

:bigbow:

[Golfingnut]

"There may be many more of us who are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation."

If you are trained to return fire in a shoot back situation, you would be a welcome addition to the gun carrying community. A person who just carries but is not trained in stressful shooting situations is a liability and a danger to those around the situation.

The wannabee cowboys and wannabee policemen are hazards.

:clap2::mademyday:

[graciegirl]

“So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.” Figmo Bohica

“I found it reported in national news sources.” Taltarzac725

Yes, it was reported in the national press. But most significantly, the Newtown shooting received almost continuous coverage in print, broadcast, and online media, while the San Antonio shooting was reported sporadically in the press. I personally had no knowledge of the San Antonio shooting until reading this post.

“I certainly don't think it was part of a huge conspiracy to suppress news of this sort.” Graciegirl

Agreed – I don’t think there’s a conspiracy of news organizations to suppress news.

However, I do believe that one’s world view influences what one thinks is news worthy. Almost all the news coverage of the Newtown tragedy includes an implication that new federal legislation restricting gun ownership (i.e., better gun control) is the universal antidote to mass shootings/killings. And since the San Antonio news story supports a different narrative (the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun) most media deem it not news worthy...at least in terms of volume and amplitude of the coverage.

What about mentally ill people being one of the principal causes of mass killings where guns are simply their weapon of choice? Think back to many of the most recent, news-worthy shootings; many of these shootings were the work of mentally-ill individuals.

Do you remember several decades back when mentally ill people were routinely institutionalized? What happened? Well, society has undergone a long-term change called deinstitutionalization. The following passage between the **** is from Wikipedia.
*******************************
Deinstitutionalization is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.

Deinstitutionalization works in two ways: the first focuses on reducing the population size of mental institutions by releasing patients, shortening stays, and reducing both admissions and readmission rates; the second focuses on reforming mental hospitals' institutional processes so as to reduce or eliminate reinforcement of dependency, hopelessness, learned helplessness, and other maladaptive behaviors.

According to psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, deinstitutionalization has been an overall benefit for most psychiatric patients, though many have been left homeless and without care. The deinstitutionalization movement was initiated by three factors:
• A socio-political movement for community mental health services and open hospitals;
• The advent of psychotropic drugs able to manage psychotic episodes;
• A financial imperative to shift costs from state to federal budgets.

According to American psychiatrist Loren Mosher, most deinstitutionalization in the USA took place after 1972, as a result of the availability of SSI, long after the antipsychotic drugs were used universally in state hospitals.

According to psychiatrist and author Thomas Szasz, deinstitutionalization is the policy and practice of transferring homeless, involuntarily hospitalized mental patients from state mental hospitals into many different kinds of de facto psychiatric institutions funded largely by the federal government. These federally subsidized institutions began in the United States and were quickly adopted by most Western governments. The plan was set in motion by the Community Mental Health Act as a part of John F. Kennedy's legislation and passed by the U.S. Congress in 1963, mandating the appointment of a commission to make recommendations for "combating mental illness in the United States".

In many cases the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill in the Western world from the 1960s onward has translated into policies of "community release". Individuals who previously would have been in mental institutions are no longer continuously supervised by health care workers. Some experts, such as E. Fuller Torrey, have considered deinstitutionalization to be a failure, while some consider many aspects of institutionalization to have been worse.
*******************************
Another world view is to judge everything using the “black or white” model, i.e., it’s good or bad. The alternative world view is to recognize that everything (every product, every decision, every political system, and every (fill in the blank)) has both pros and cons.

Deinstitutionalization is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Deinstitutionalization is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

Gun ownership is good for the freedom of individuals. (PRO)
Gun ownership is bad for the prevention of gun violence by mentally ill people who stop taking their psychotropic medications. (CON)

SO, is deinstitutionalization or gun ownership the cause of gun violence? Or is it possible that both deinstitutionalization and gun ownership are both factors in mass shootings? Is it possible that neither is THE cause of gun violence?

Is it possible that over-simplification (gun ownership is the cause of gun violence) is not helpful to understanding and solving a complex social issue?...but that it DOES support an agenda promoted by many national leaders and media organizations?

Is it possible that the nature of the media (commercial success of for-profit news organizations is driven by the need for catchy headlines and appeal to a mass-audience) contributes to the over-simplification of complex issues?

Is it possible that people who feel they need to own guns are different than me?

[Taltarzac725]

Don't you guys on TOTV realize that you can't argue with Gun people? They write posts so long I give up reading them!

Like it or not the San Antonio story wasn't as big a story because NO ONE DIED. Simple. Death makes the headlines. Preventing death does not. Not a conspiracy.

That sounds true. Rebel Pirate does have a point but certainly whenever a law is written lawyers find ways to get around it. That's pretty much what I learned while at the University of Minnesota Law Scool (Class of 1989). You just need someone writing the laws who is as clever as the Ivy League legal eagles in D.C. who are going to be trying to push holes in any assault weapons ban. Maybe, a reasonable person standard for what is an assault weapon? Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) That would make the courts determine on the facts involved whether or not some weapon meets a ban criteria. Jury Instruction (http://www.juryinstruction.com/article_section/articles/article_archive/article63.shtml)

Gun control facts-- Gun Control - Just Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)

[Rebel Pirate]

That sounds true. Rebel Pirate does have a point but certainly whenever a law is written lawyers find ways to get around it. That's pretty much what I learned while at the University of Minnesota Law Scool (Class of 1989). You just need someone writing the laws who is as clever as the Ivy League legal eagles in D.C. who are going to be trying to push holes in any assault weapons ban. Maybe, a reasonable person standard for what is an assault weapon? Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) That would make the courts determine on the facts involved whether or not some weapon meets a ban criteria. Jury Instruction (http://www.juryinstruction.com/article_section/articles/article_archive/article63.shtml)

Gun control facts-- Gun Control - Just Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)

Thanks for the reference to "Just Facts"...never saw that one before...it looks to be a rich resource for those who are really interested in facts, not just opinion. :MOJE_whot:

[Emery Eaton]

There is nothing more precious than life. It seems that some young people don't respect life these days. They want to "go out with a bang" so to say. I just can't understand these tragic events. It made me sick to my stomach to hear about what happened in CT.

I actually drove through that town the other day on my way back down from New Hampshire. Such a nice little New England town, things like that could happen anywhere. I believe it is because the generations have stopped communicating. in some families kids don't talk to parents, and grandparents don't share their experiences with their grandchildren. Love solves the problems more than programs. The families that survive are the families who remain close and communicate. They don't let silence get in the way, they share their love with each other.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Is it possible that people who feel they need to own guns are different than me?

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different then you

[Taltarzac725]

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different then you

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.

[graciegirl]

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. -Adolph Hitler

It's also possible that people that feel like gun control is good are different

then you

I don't know. I just don't feel comfortable owning a gun. Just since moving here to The Villages have I met people who had guns who didn't hunt.
It is new to me.


I don't understand why so many gun people are so adversarial.

I am a conservative person in most areas but this intensity about guns is new to me.

[janmcn]

On Sunday, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant! Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting? There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.


Two wounded in theater shooting - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php)

Suppose you were the editor of a big city newspaper with limited resources. Where would you send your reporters...to cover the worst event to happen in this country since September 11, 2001 when 20 innocent children were slaughtered, or some yahoo trying to kill his girlfriend in a movie theater where no one died?

Sadly these events happen every day in this country. Sometimes there's a good outcome, like what happened in San Antonio, but most times there's not a good outcome.

We've become so accustomed to these type of events, that they hardly make the news any more.

Are you suggesting that there should be armed guards at the Rialto?

[Mr Hanky]

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.



I don't get how you can categorize every law abiding citizen of the United States that goes target shooting with a firearm that YOU don't care for as " juvenile " .
And what message is being sent by allowing firearms that YOU don't care for to be sold in our free country? Enlighten me please.

[Taltarzac725]

I don't get how you can categorize every law abiding citizen of the United States that goes target shooting with a firearm that YOU don't care for as " juvenile " .
And what message is being sent by allowing firearms that YOU don't care for to be sold in our free country? Enlighten me please.

Shooting a target with massive amounts of bullets sounds very juvenile to me. It seems a little like blowing up plastic models for kicks. Something I did when I was twelve.

What reasonable purpose does an assault rifle have?? I cannot come up with one. Maybe if you are battling the Taliban or a gang of drug dealers. We have soldiers, S.W.A.T, and police for those purposes.

[Mr Hanky]

I don't know. I just don't feel comfortable owning a gun. Just since moving here to The Villages have I met people who had guns who didn't hunt.
It is new to me.


I don't understand why so many gun people are so adversarial.

I am a conservative person in most areas but this intensity about guns is new to me.


Gracie you have every right as an American to not want to own or even like guns. I appreciate your position on that and you have pretty much sat back on this issue.
It's the positions of some others though that make inflametary remaks about good citizens that choose the right to Cary or own weapons that gets stuff flying.
Because a previous poster dislikes certain weapons he wants to use words like juvenile and other baseless remarks. Again Gracie I appreciate your position,I really do. I wish more people were as graceful as you when stating a position. They could learn a lot from you. I know I have.

Also for a previous poster ......
everyone I know that target shoots with an assault riffle is a police officer and no they don't use them in the line of duty, just for target practice.

[Figmo Bohica]

Few have argued that we should ban all firearms. The argument seems to be against guns that have very little practical use for either hunting, home protection (a 12 gauge would probably be as efficient in home protection as an assault rifle), concealed carry, etc. Maybe, it is fun to use an assault weapon for target practice but it seems rather juvenile when compared with what kind of message allowing these weapons to be sold sends.

First off the 2d Amendment is NOT about hunting. Everyone should read and understand the United States Constitution. Nothing in the 2d Amendment mentions or hints at hunting.

Second, yes a 12 gauge is a good home defense firearm, but really here in the Villages. You need to come to our "Cool Gun Club" meeting, Mulberry Grove Rec Center, Jan 4, 7 PM, and find out about home protection, concealed carry and how to be a responsible firearm owner and most importantly, how to keep yourself out of having to use any force, up to and including deadly force by being aware of your surroundings.

Third, define "assualt weapon?" Then we will discuss your statement above.

Fourth, please state the message that "we" are sending by allowing these weapons to be sold.

Thank you, have a Happy New Year.

[Taltarzac725]

Gracie you have every right as an American to not want to own or even like guns. I appreciate your position on that and you have pretty much sat back on this issue.
It's the positions of some others though that make inflametary remaks about good citizens that choose the right to Cary or own weapons that gets stuff flying.
Because a previous poster dislikes certain weapons he wants to use words like juvenile and other baseless remarks. Again Gracie I appreciate your position,I really do. I wish more people were as graceful as you when stating a position. They could learn a lot from you. I know I have.

Also for a previous poster ......
everyone I know that target shoots with an assault riffle is a police officer and no they don't use them in the line of duty, just for target practice.

Well, that's very different if you are an active police officer with an assault weapon. Not sure if retired police officers need assault weapons, however, unless they are in a community where there might be a need of retired officers with such weapons like parts of many big cities like Baltimore, D.C. Chicago, NYC, Buffalo, Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc. Cannot really see a practical reason why any retired person in the Villages, for instance, would need an assault rifle. Local police have them in their vehicles.

[Figmo Bohica]

Well, that's very different if you are an active police officer with an assault weapon. Not sure if retired police officers need assault weapons, however, unless they are in a community where there might be a need of retired officers with such weapons like parts of many big cities like Baltimore, D.C. Chicago, NYC, Buffalo, Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc. Cannot really see a practical reason why any retired person in the Villages, for instance, would need an assault rifle. Local police have them in their vehicles.

Guess you have never been to a 3 gun shooting event or to a military rifle match, or to a CMP match.

Now define "assualt rifle?"

[Russ_Boston]

Guess you have never been to a 3 gun shooting event or to a military rifle match, or to a CMP match.

Now define "assualt rifle?"

Please - don't stand on definitions. That's the lawyerly way out of an argument. I define it much like the congress defined pornography "I'll know it when I see it"!

So I take it that you are in favor of the ability to purchase, carry and use multi-bullet (pick a number) re loadable chamber semi-automatic weapons? If so then we are at a stand still. Because no matter your definition I am not in favor. You can tell from my language that I have no clue about guns and I have no interest in owning one for protection. But I did enjoy target shooting when I was younger.

[ugotme]

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/attachments/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/7726d1355866660t-ban-assault-weapons-petition-rifles.jpg

Sorry - could not get this pic to load on here. If you click on this you will see two IDENTICAL rifles - but one sure does look "meaner!"
Although identical, the bottom one would be considered an "assault weapon" by most people.

[Rebel Pirate]

Is it possible that people who feel they need to own guns are different than me?

Absolutely!..we're all different! To quote a well known sage, "I have to be myself. Everyone else is taken." We're all products of genetics and our experiences. If our experiences were the same, perhaps we'd have similar views. Here's a summary of one of my experiences.

I am not a "gun person." I don't feel a need to own guns...it's a choice I make.

About 20 years ago I was in the military and stationed in southern California. I had never carried a weapon in my car except while driving from one duty station to the next; otherwise, they were locked up at my home. I never planned or expected to carry a weapon outside my home. Where were you April 29, 1992? For me, it was a normal west coast day...cool and sunny. Then it changed dramatically. What came to be known as the Rodney King riots broke out. I’ve got several stories, both personal and from teammates. No one from my organization was killed or seriously injured, but there were close calls. The riots produced 50+ killed and 200+ seriously injured; smoke from car fires on the nearby freeway wafted through our workspaces; a 15 minute drive took 2 1/2 hours because the freeways were closed; televised video showed innocent people pulled from their cars being beaten and murdered. It was a surreal change from the beautiful, laidback place that existed shortly before.

The next week there was a pistol in my car wherever I went...and the only place I went was to/from duty. Duty demanded I go to my station; prudence dictated I be prepared to defend myself. This experience didn’t turn me into a gun person. But it convinced me that law and order can breakdown without warning, and then it’s too late to buy a gun, become proficient with it, get a concealed carry permit, learn how to carry it, etc. It also crystalized the truth that police can’t prevent crime and they won’t be available when you need them most.

I now have a concealed carry permit and I plan to have one when I move to The Villages. I don’t ever plan to carry a weapon either in The Villages, outside The Villages, either on my person or in my car, other than when transporting guns to/from the range. But, if “something” ever happens I’ll be prepared. I don’t expect “something” will ever happen...but then I never expected “something” to happen before April 28, 1992. I have no problem at all with ANYONE who chooses to NOT own a firearm. But, in the event that "something" happens, the police are nowhere in sight, and you absolutely must travel (like to a hospital) you might show up at my door. I'll be prepared to help you...whether you like guns or not.

I own a home and have homeowners insurance. Neither owning a gun nor having a concealed carry permit defines me...not anymore than owning a home and having an insurance policy defines me.

I am not a "gun person."

[Russ_Boston]

Absolutely!..we're all different! To quote a well known sage, "I have to be myself. Everyone else is taken." We're all products of genetics and our experiences. If our experiences were the same, perhaps we'd have similar views. Here's a summary of one of my experiences.

I am not a "gun person." I don't feel a need to own guns...it's a choice I make.

About 20 years ago I was in the military and stationed in southern California. I had never carried a weapon in my car except while driving from one duty station to the next; otherwise, they were locked up at my home. I never planned or expected to carry a weapon outside my home. Where were you April 29, 1992? For me, it was a normal west coast day...cool and sunny. Then it changed dramatically. What came to be known as the Rodney King riots broke out. I’ve got several stories, both personal and from teammates. No one from my organization was killed or seriously injured, but there were close calls. The riots produced 50+ killed and 200+ seriously injured; smoke from car fires on the nearby freeway wafted through our workspaces; a 15 minute drive took 2 1/2 hours because the freeways were closed; televised video showed innocent people pulled from their cars being beaten and murdered. It was a surreal change from the beautiful, laidback place that existed shortly before.

The next week there was a pistol in my car wherever I went...and the only place I went was to/from duty. Duty demanded I go to my station; prudence dictated I be prepared to defend myself. This experience didn’t turn me into a gun person. But it convinced me that law and order can breakdown without warning, and then it’s too late to buy a gun, become proficient with it, get a concealed carry permit, learn how to carry it, etc. It also crystalized the truth that police can’t prevent crime and they won’t be available when you need them most.

I now have a concealed carry permit and I plan to have one when I move to The Villages. I don’t ever plan to carry a weapon either in The Villages, outside The Villages, either on my person or in my car, other than when transporting guns to/from the range. But, if “something” ever happens I’ll be prepared. I don’t expect “something” will ever happen...but then I never expected “something” to happen before April 28, 1992. I have no problem at all with ANYONE who chooses to NOT own a firearm. But, in the event that "something" happens, the police are nowhere in sight, and you absolutely must travel (like to a hospital) you might show up at my door. I'll be prepared to help you...whether you like guns or not.

I own a home and have homeowners insurance. Neither owning a gun nor having a concealed carry permit defines me...not anymore than owning a home and having an insurance policy defines me.

I am not a "gun person."

I think you'll read that the vast majority of us who don't own guns have little issue with a permit for a hand gun for protection etc. But it gets crazy with these semi-automatic rifles etc. in my opinion. I too was held up at gun point but looking back at it I'm glad I didn't have a gun because in the end no one was injured, no shots were fired. I just lost some cash and the 3 'guys' were caught and sentenced to 3-5 years. Would the outcome have been different if one of the people being robbed (there were 5 of us) were carrying a weapon?

[Taltarzac725]

Do gun bans work? | The Columbus Dispatch (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/insight/2012/12/23/1-do-bans-work.html)

I still see the best way to create an effective "assault rifle" ban is to put a reasonable person standard into the legislation on gun restrictions. At least, that will cover some of the tricks the NRA and gun manufacturers will have to get around any ban. The lawyers would be fighting in courts though to get the best precedent for their side(s) on how a reasonable person defines "assault rifle".

[JoeC1947]

All this talk about what is an assault rifle and, should they be banned is irrelevant. Just as much damage can be inflicted with a pump action shot gun if not more.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Well, that's very different if you are an active police officer with an assault weapon. Not sure if retired police officers need assault weapons, however, unless they are in a community where there might be a need of retired officers with such weapons like parts of many big cities like Baltimore, D.C. Chicago, NYC, Buffalo, Minneapolis-St. Paul, etc. Cannot really see a practical reason why any retired person in the Villages, for instance, would need an assault rifle. Local police have them in their vehicles.

I don't own a gun. I have never owned a gun that was mine. I don't ever plan to own a gun. I am however all for freedom and the US Constitution and against a ban on guns. Here is what confuses me with this disscussion. The term "assault weapon" "assault rifle" "shotgun" have been thrown around as if they are different items, In an earlier post you stated something along the lines that a shotgun would be as effective as an assault rifle in a home invasion, thereby implying that owning a shotgun is ok in your book. I don't understand why a shotgun is ok in your book as I'm sure you realize that shoutguns can also be an assault weapon? as can a pistol? Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) I think just throwing terms around without a understanding of what they mean just confuses a otherwise well thought out argument(s). I of course disagree with your arguments but I respect you and your passion

[Taltarzac725]

I don't own a gun. I have never owned a gun that was mine. I don't ever plan to own a gun. I am however all for freedom and the US Constitution and against a ban on guns. Here is what confuses me with this disscussion. The term "assault weapon" "assault rifle" "shotgun" have been thrown around as if they are different items, In an earlier post you stated something along the lines that a shotgun would be as effective as an assault rifle in a home invasion, thereby implying that owning a shotgun is ok in your book. I don't understand why a shotgun is ok in your book as I'm sure you realize that shoutguns can also be an assault weapon? as can a pistol? Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) I think just throwing terms around without a understanding of what they mean just confuses a otherwise well thought out argument(s). I of course disagree with your arguments but I respect you and your passion

Read in context for the definitions. Not sure what the US Constitutions' 2nd Amendment means without the context of the various US Supreme Court cases that interpret what rights we as citizens actually have.
Supreme Court Gun Rights Case Likely On The Horizon (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/supreme-court-gun-rights-_n_2314881.html)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

Gun Control and the Second Amendment (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/guncontrol/Gun_Control_and_the_Second_Amendment.htm)


Gun Control and Gun Rights - News - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/topics/subjects/gun-control-and-gun-rights)

There is no practically way to collect shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles and the like from people who now have them. Of course they can be used for assault weapons as can just about anything from rock to club to baseball bat to broken wine bottle to knife to handgun to shotgun.

"Assault rifle" I would bet would be understood by most people polled to mean a weapon that fires at a certain rate and with a certain muzzle velocity no matter what it looks like from the outside. Magazine quantity is also a factor.

[Figmo Bohica]

This should help clear up some of the argument and help in the discussion.

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

1.It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
2.It must be capable of selective fire;
3.It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
4.Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
5.And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

Now let's discuss "assualt rifle" "assualt gun" or anyother "assualt xxxxxxxx" you want to call it.

[EdV]

.....What reasonable purpose does an assault rifle have?? I cannot come up with one. Maybe if you are battling the Taliban or a gang of drug dealers. We have soldiers, S.W.A.T, and police for those purposes.

Well for one thing, the AR-15 (used in last month's tragic shooting) makes an excellent varmint hunting rifle as reviewed in this article (http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/varmint-hunting-ar-15-1.php).

[paulandjean]

ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Somebody makes money training the shooter, Somebody makes money selling guns and ammo to the shooters. Has nothing to do with "right to bear arms"

[Taltarzac725]

Well for one thing, the AR-15 (used in last month's tragic shooting) makes an excellent varmint hunting rifle as reviewed in this article (http://www.longrangehunting.com/articles/varmint-hunting-ar-15-1.php).

That's not really a critical review but just a "I did this" kind of article. Would not a 30-06 or some other rifle work just as well for hunting coyotes?

I have not shot a gun since 1980 or so but had a couple of 12 gauges and a few 22s for target shooting. These were a single shot and a Winchester like replica with a lever action.

I have not had much interest in guns/rifles etc since 1980.

Paul and Jean are right IMHO that the major impetus behind the anti-gun control fighters is the money involved. I wonder how much funding the NRA gets from arms manufacturers? VPC - The Violence Policy Center - National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals (04/13/2011) (http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm)

[Cantwaittoarrive]

This story that the OP started this thread with finally received coverage on Fox News at 2:23 PM EST today

[Cantwaittoarrive]

ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Somebody makes money training the shooter, Somebody makes money selling guns and ammo to the shooters. Has nothing to do with "right to bear arms"

Even if I agreed with this statement which I don't so what? without getting into a political discussion, most actions by the USA government have to do with money. Most things that are done weather it's bailing out corporations, invading countries or raising taxes are motivated by the economic impact it's been that way no matter what party is in control. For me it is about the "right to bear arms" for my family members that have died and / or served to insure our constitutional rights it's been about all of our constitutional rights and their buddy next to them! not about the "money"

[EdV]

....I have not shot a gun since 1980 or so but had a couple of 12 gauges and a few 22s for target shooting. These were a single shot and a Winchester like replica with a lever action....

Of course you do realize that the AR-15 used in last month’s tragic shooting is a 22 caliber bullet. Right?

[Taltarzac725]

Of course you do realize that the AR-15 used in last month’s tragic shooting is a 22 caliber bullet. Right?

.223 I believe. It is an assault rifle though I had a single shot bolt action .22 and a Marlin lever action. Quite different weapons. Marlin Firearms (http://www.marlinfirearms.com/)

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15)

Marlin makes very reasonable weapons for hunting.

[EdV]

.223 I believe. It is an assault rifle though I had a single shot bolt action .22 and a Marlin lever action. Quite different weapons. Marlin Firearms (http://www.marlinfirearms.com/)

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15)

Marlin makes very reasonable weapons for hunting.

And your benign Marlin lever action rifle held what, 15 rounds or so, each of which would drop a thirty five pound child instantly. I’m really sorry to have to post this but it bothers me when people won’t ‘stay the course’ to keep our children safe.

[ilovetv]

I'm not defending personal possession of assault rifles, but I still think there are many questions to be asked and addressed at the individual and local level before getting crazed across the nation about more restrictive gun laws or not.

Why was this shooter in CT able to get into the school and shoot the principal, especially when they had a new system that one would assume had most or all the features needed to keep intruders out?

Why did people know the shooter was deeply troubled since grade school but yet, when he was seen with the mom at the gun range getting training and practice on the Bushmaster, nobody looks into:

a) why the mom has such a weapon;

b) why does the son need to be trained on the weapon/

c) what does the dad know about his son's involvement with weapons at the mom's home?

Surely, a man who could afford to pay $289,000 per year in alimony has the resources to get help for his son and make sure he is living in a safe and appropriate place that fits his known mental disorders.

[Taltarzac725]

And your benign Marlin lever action rifle held what, 15 rounds or so, each of which would drop a thirty five pound child instantly. I’m really sorry to have to post this but it bothers me when people won’t ‘stay the course’ to keep our children safe.

I believe my Marlin Model held around 7 or 8 long rifle 22s. Have not used it since 1980 or so. Hard to remember.

And what does this mean 'stay the course". You seem to be arguing now for a ban of all long rifles, shotguns as well as all handguns. That's just impratical and could never be enforced. An assault rifle has no business being in the hands of anyone but a soldier, police officer, or some other fully trained and very closely watched professional.

My definition of "assault rifle" would be how a reasonable person would use it to cover weapons made for SWAT, soldiers, cops, and others threatened by the use of deadly force by criminals, enemy soldiers, and terrorists.

[Russ_Boston]

I love how people say something like "It's part of our constitution". In case you missed it our constitution has been amended with 27 official amendments (including the 2nd) and clarified with tens of thousands of court rulings. Things need to be re-interpreted from time to time based on new technology and new economies etc. Maybe it's time to re-clarify this amendment.

[Taltarzac725]

I love how people say something like "It's part of our constitution". In case you missed it our constitution has been amended with 27 official amendments (including the 2nd) and clarified with tens of thousands of court rulings. Things need to be re-interpreted from time to time based on new technology and new economies etc. Maybe it's time to re-clarify this amendment.

I agree. So much of the 1780s world is so different from the world of today. The Freedom of the Press, Religious Freedom, the Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech all of these rights mean something quite different in say 1945 than they do after the Founders put in the Bill of Rights. They mean something quite different now in 2013 as well.

I can understand many Americans being adamant about the right to bears arms during WWII when they were afraid that German, Russian, Italian or Japanese troops might land on the two coasts. They did bomb Hawaii and invade some Alaskan islands as well as sunk various ships near coasts. U.S. Merchant Ships Sunk or Damaged in World War II (http://www.usmm.org/shipsunkdamaged.html)

And, Indian war parties did raid various settlements up to 1911. American Indian Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars) Battle of Kelley Creek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kelley_Creek#Last_Massacre)

Can see some of the Founding Fathers might argue for the right to have muskets, ax, sword and the like for common white male landowners. Not sure if they would argue though for them having things like dynamite or large stores of black powder, cannon, crude grenade, etc.

Bet that the Founding Fathers would see the reason of storing black powder barrels in a reasonable place where they would not have a chance to catch fire and blow up whatever surrounding structures were there. Gun Safety Regulation in Early America (http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Safety%20Regulation%20in%20Early%20America.html)

[EdV]

I believe my Marlin Model held around 7 or 8 long rifle 22s. Have not used it since 1980 or so. Hard to remember.

And what does this mean 'stay the course". You seem to be arguing now for a ban of all long rifles, shotguns as well as all handguns. That's just impratical and could never be enforced. An assault rifle has no business being in the hands of anyone but a soldier, police officer, or some other fully trained and very closely watched professional.

My definition of "assault rifle" would be how a reasonable person would use it to cover weapons made for SWAT, soldiers, cops, and others threatened by the use of deadly force by criminals, enemy soldiers, and terrorists.

Every Marlin 22 lever rifle built since 1891 has a magazine capacity of between 15 and 19 rounds (depending on barrel length) as described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_Golden_39A). So why did you feel the need to own a weapon with such a high capacity?

By ‘stay the course’ I mean the one laid out by the NRA in their press conference of a week or two ago. A trained ‘good guy’ with a gun in every public school.

Furthermore, it’s annoying to see so many posts referring to ‘assault rifles’ by posters who have decided to make up their own definition. Since the AR-15 looks like the M16 assault rifle, it must be an assault rifle. Well it isn’t. It is a semi-automatic rifle period.

[Taltarzac725]

Every Marlin 22 lever rifle built since 1891 has a magazine capacity of between 15 and 19 rounds (depending on barrel length) as described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_Golden_39A). So why did you feel the need to own a weapon with such a high capacity?

By ‘stay the course’ I mean the one laid out by the NRA in their press conference of a week or two ago. A trained ‘good guy’ with a gun in every public school.

Furthermore, it’s annoying to see so many posts referring to ‘assault rifles’ by posters who have decided to make up their own definition. Since the AR-15 looks like the M16 assault rifle, it must be an assault rifle. Well it isn’t. It is a semi-automatic rifle period.

I said I had a Marlin lever action back in the 1970s. Never said I have one now. I got it when I was 12 which I lived in Reno, Nevada where many kids aged 12 or so also had weapons they hunted with as there were a lot of game in the outskirts of Reno like rattlesnakes, rabbits, ducks, quail, etc.

The NRA does not define what an "assault rifle" is nor do laws. What does define "assualt rifle" is how it is used in English in the United States and elsewhere. A look at comination of dictionary definitions would be a good start-- Assault rifle - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20rifle) assault rifle - definition of assault rifle by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assault+rifle)

I hardly agree with the armed man in every school idea. Jeff Flake: NRA's Armed Guard Proposal Would Be 'Edict From Washington' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/jeff-flake-nra_n_2402957.html) What is good for some school in gun loving Texas might not work for a school in Vermont.

[EdV]

I see you chose to carefully avoid referencing the more definitive description of Assault Rifle in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). Why is that I wonder?

Furthermore, now that you had your fun with your firearms when you were younger, you now want to infringe upon our rights to have them.

[Taltarzac725]

I see you chose to carefully avoid referencing the more definitive description of Assault Rifle in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). Why is that I wonder?

Furthermore, now that you had your fun with your firearms when you were younger, you now want to infringe upon our rights to have them.

That Wikipedia article looks like is has had a very strong gun-lover contribution. I am a big fan of Wikipedia but this entry looks to have a lot of spin which can be seen from the footnotes.

I would like to see assault rifles of any kind of definition out of the hands of people like the Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, the Newtown killer Adam Lanza, and other depraved murderers. Shooting bullets at a very high rate of speed allowed them to kill many more people than it would have if weapons that made them cock a lever and fire or whatever. I am NOT a gun fanatic and have little interest in guns.

You keep making me the issue rather than guns.

[EdV]

I’m not making you the issue T. I am debating with those of you that insist on making a particular gun type (AR-15) the issue merely based on its similar appearance to the military’s fully automatic M16 rifle. A rifle which was not used in any of the shootings have been mentioned.

I accept your opposition to the NRA proposal. But understand that those of you that want to re-instate a ban on certain gun types are asking us to once again try what was unsuccessfully implemented in the past.

The NRA is saying “we did that before and it didn’t work” so how about a new approach to the problem.

Let’s move on, shall we?

[Taltarzac725]

I’m not making you the issue T. I am debating with those of you that insist on making a particular gun type (AR-15) the issue merely based on its similar appearance to the military’s fully automatic M16 rifle. A rifle which was not used in any of the shootings have been mentioned.

I accept your opposition to the NRA proposal. But understand that those of you that want to re-instate a ban on certain gun types are asking us to once again try what was unsuccessfully implemented in the past.

The NRA is saying “we did that before and it didn’t work” so how about a new approach to the problem.

Let’s move on, shall we?

We did that before but it did not work because the arms manufacturer's lawyers kept on finding loopholes in the law. You just need a more carefully crafted law that shuts the loopholes down. A reasonable person standard for the definition of weapons that needed outlawing would close many of these loopholes and put the onus on trial lawyers to come up with a workable definition of "assault rifles".

Or, perhaps, you modify the law banning certain weapons to keep up with the ingenuity of the arms manufacturers' lawyers. That happened with Prohibition all through that social experiment.

[EdV]

Enough already. Chill

[Moderator]

Reminder... The topic was news coverage, or lack thereof, of a shooting event.

This thread has strayed far off topic and will be closed.