Saw Stop would have prevented this

Page 2 of 10  


No it won't. Shooting people in person will never be the same as someone bombing people. The shooter isn't in immediate danger from the people around him, not until the authorities arrive.
The bomber is in danger if he sets off a bomb while he's there. ~ They're two distinctly different mind sets at work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave" wrote in message

I'm not sure there is a difference in most cases... the anecdotal evidence suggests most of the mass shooters intend suicide either by self or by cop, i.e., getting away uninjured or alive isn't a criteria in their decisions. Theirs is a thought pattern of which most people cannot conceive as self-preservation is a core part of any animals' make-up... these people are not thus normal.
As access to guns becomes more difficult (real or perceived) in the U.S. it is likely that the methods used in other countries will become more common here in the U.S., e.g,. bombing, fires, chemical/poison attacks, and even knives and machetes. It all falls back to the notion of weapons substitution which historically is and will continue to be the norm in the face of weapons shortages. Put another way, goal oriented attackers will find a way to carry out their goals... Disregard for laws is also the norm!
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/17/2013 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

And that is because of gun laws that restrict every one from carrying a gun. If every one that wanted to carry guns, did, the shooter would be in immediate danger before the police arrived.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:19:41 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

But, it doesn't happen that way does it? Guns are by far the tool of choice when some nut job goes off the deep end and goes on a killing rampage.
I can't remember *ever* hearing of someone rampaging around with a bomb. Sure there have been bombings, but it's usually someone who plants it and then isn't there when it goes off.
That's a completely different scenario than someone walking through a building shooting people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/16/2013 4:57 AM, Dave wrote:

Guns are popular because they have been in our culture since the days of having to own one so that you could eat and the movies glorify their use. Out law the guns and the movies will switch to mimic and other devices will be used.

Well I can assure those the used a bomb instead of guns in Boston yesterday watched the whole thing go down. They planted the bomb where they knew there would be cameras recording the event. And I would say it is quite likely that they were one of the spectators.

Well in this case I believe they got to watch a couple of buildings be destroyed and 100+ people get hurt. and I heard one expert indicate that this looked like an untrained persons work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

That's not what we're discussing though. There's a completely different mind set between someone going around and shooting people and the person who plants a bomb (of any type) and it's there when it goes off.
The person with the gun has essentially lost their mental faculties and isn't thinking much about person preservation. Whereas, the bomber still has some sense of self protection and has a different agenda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:33:02 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

I wonder if there's any psychiatrists here to enlighten us?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely there are and if it were not politically incorrect they would be saying that someone that wants to commit mass murders is going to do just that regardless if guns are readily available or not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with that. However, that's not the point I was trying to make. For a firearm, (excluding snipers), the perpetrator has to be there doing his killing. A bomber doesn't and most often isn't there.
There's a different mind set between these two types of killers. And, that mind set dictates a different motivation between the two.
I certainly agree, if someone really wants to kill, then they probably will. It's just that the cause and effect are different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/2013 11:13 AM, Dave wrote:

door triggered shotgun burglar deterrents were made illegal, but it's a class of these. they also have radar controlled weapons, used for sentry duty, for example, so there may not be anyone around.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:47:53 -0700, chaniarts

Of course there's an exception to everything, but it's certainly not the status quo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/2013 1:13 PM, Dave wrote:

IMHO that would all depend on the expense and or ease of acquisition.
You have to believe that those seeking Allah are not thinking straight or have so much hate/loss of need to exist and that have explosives strapped their bodies are of a similar mind set as those spraying bullets.

Their mind set is not strictly to kill numbers of people only if they can do it with a hand gun, the gun is simply the most readily available weapon. A bomb would require a few hours of preparation to do the same act and seldom do these people just snap, most all have planned the event in great detail.

Different until one weapon of choice is unavailable and then like in the middle east less expensive and just as deadly weapons are used.
Simply put if controlling guns would work, it already would have worked. There have been countless restrictions put in place in the last 40 years and it would appear that things have gotten worse, not better. So trying to fix what is not broken is not going to solve the problem of people not being held accountable for their actions or for how they have let their children be raised.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Come on Leon. Are you actually going to tell me that many "effective" gun restrictions have been put in place in the US? I have the greatest respect for you, but I have to seriously question your opinion of what constitutes "gun control"?
Sandy Hook was one of the most shameful shootings this world has ever seen and still your US gun lobby stands firm.
Just today, the proposal to expand the background checks for people buying guns online and at gun shows fell six votes short of winning the 60 votes needed to pass.
'A society terrified of gun violence, so they buy more guns to protect themselves from it. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic'.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id 981374
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/2013 8:52 PM, Dave wrote:

Restrictions from buying a gun.

Actually several years ago the Soviet Union/Russia had a worse incident at a school.

Thank Goodness! Has no one ever been shot and killed in Canada? How is that gun control working? Yeah, now only the criminals have guns.

Only a few disillusioned people in this country are terrified of gun violence, there would be many more if we could not equally defend ourselves.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obama-gun-control-defeat-shameful-day-for-washington-1.1241389#ixzz2QqH3IKT7

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id 981374

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your country specific taunts are beneath you.
Considering the increasing amount of nut jobs that appear in society these days, I for one would prefer as few firearms around them as possible.
It has been repeatedly proven that it takes constant training and preparedness by people (those in law enforcement for example) to react properly to on the spot gun shootings. You'd have your everyday citizen armed and ready to pull out a gun and start shooting? Don't be ridiculous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 10:05 PM, Dave wrote:

Where and how had this been proven?

Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is thinking having a badge on one's shirt makes them somehow inherently better at using firearms. I know of teenagers who have better aim and gun control than most cops. The vast majority cops only discharge their firearms at the shooting range. Most private gun owners shoot their weapons much more frequently than cops. They used to teach firearms procedure and shooting in high schools. People weren't afraid of guns back then. They saw them as the tools they were and trained their children to use and respect them.
Since this recent gun control debate has started, there have many stories in the news of homeowners who have defended themselves from intruders with their personal firearms.
Why is it that the cities with the strictest guns control laws and bans on hand guns still have the highest (by leaps and bounds) rates for murder by guns?
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because generally, they have more, better and appropriate training that your average citizen in a dangerous situation. At least, they do in Canada. I may be mistaken in thinking the same existed for law enforcement in the US.

It's not the proper use of a firearm that's in question. It's the proper use of a firm arm in a dangerous, extremely stressful situation that I'm talking about. Anybody had aim and shoot a gun. It takes repeated training to do it properly in a dangerous situation.

And perhaps I should counter with: How many stories have there been where a home owner has unsuccessfully defended themselves? And then, you can also add to that equation: How many homeowners have had their home burglarize and had their guns stolen?
However many examples you can provide of good outcomes involving guns, there are many more where the opposite has happened.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 10:38 PM, Dave wrote:

Yet the bad guys seem to get enough training. In every city in America and most rural areas there are firearms training courses, which include tactical weapons training. it's a matter of priority. If you have a table saw, you seek training to know how to use it. Same with guns.

I can also point out that there are a thousand times more deaths by automobile, but no one is banning them. There are hundreds of times more deaths from baseball bats and hammers, but no one is trying to ban them.
In Israel, every child has to go through military training and service that includes tactical gun use. Switzerland requires every male adult to own firearms and go through extensive training. Both countries have extremely low gun homicide rates.
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And your replay is feeble. Automobiles, baseball bats, hammers, whatever else everyday item you want to present, usually have other uses and originated with a different purpose.
Perhaps you should read this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp
Firearms originated with just one purpose. The first maker of a gun didn't just think one day, "Hmmm, think I'll make gun for target shooting". Instead he thought, "I'll make a gun to kill some animal or go kill someone in a fight".
In any event, when all other argument fails, people in the US fall back on the second amendment. That was several hundred years ago. Society was considerably different then. I'd suggest that the second amendment is out of date in today's society.
But, I understand the want to keep it. It's like anything else. Someone gave you something and you're damned if anybody is going to take it away from you. Guess you're going to have to find some other method to handle your gun crimes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/18/13 11:13 PM, Dave wrote:

Then look up knives. And WTF does the original purpose of something have to do with its ability to kill. Aren't the lives takes the reason everyone wants to band guns?

When the 1st Amendment was written all we have was a printing press and it took a month for new to get across the country. We now have the internet and instant press across the world. Should we limit the 1st Amendment because of that.

It's an inalienable right, as understood by the authors of the constitution. The only one who gave it to us was our creator.
But why am I arguing with a Canadian?
--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.