The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 542
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedmondDressage View Post
    Ah yes, that old argument... 22 people were stabbed... How many died? Not a single one last I read. Is it horrific? Certainly, but those children and the adult will get to see tomorrow and their families get see them tomorrow. I would like to see people who make arguments like the above go to the houses of each of the affected families and try to tell them that we it's useless to do anything about high powered firearms because people will just use knives. But you would never do that because if you did you would realize how ridiculous that argument is.

    Thanks to a lack of gun control, and likely lack of mental health services 27 - make that 29 people, 18 - make that 22 - CHILDREN, lost their lives today. Their families will relive this every day for the rest of their lives. They will never have a truly happy holiday again because this will overshadow it.

    And to top it off, it's the SECOND attack just this week. That is unacceptable, period. This conversation needs to be had, but not on COTH. It needs to be had in the white house and in congress. People are dying at ridiculously high rates compared to other developed and many less developed nations. Again, absolutely 100% unacceptable. We also need to start adequately funding mental health services. While it won't prevent all instances like this it will make a very large dent. Last spring in Seattle we had a mentally ill man take the lives of five people. I actually knew him at one point long before and he had serious issues then. His family tried over and over to get him help but couldn't get the proper services because they just weren't available and five people paid for that with their lives.
    I agree with this, well said.
    There is no easy answer, and no 'one thing' to blame.
    The stigma of mental health issues, combined with the difficulty of getting access to good health care, combined with the easy access to 'weapons of mass destruction'... all of it together is a dangerous and tragic brew.


    As for countries with tougher gun laws? Someone mentioned the tragedy at Dunblane in the UK. After Dunblane the UK toughened their gun laws further and gun violence has gone down.

    As for 'guns not killing people'?.
    Tell that to the parents, grandparents, siblings and all the other people who have lost precious loved ones and whose lives are damaged forever.
    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    4 members found this post helpful.

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Apr. 29, 2002
    Location
    Lots of M states...
    Posts
    543

    Default

    I didn't read every comment, so I apologize if I am repeating, and while I understand those who use guns for hunting, hobby, and home protection, I struggle with two things regarding the "no gun control" argument... I respectfully ask for someone to help me better understand.

    1) Should we be allowed to get guns? Debatable. Assault rifles? I can't come up with a reason why any person would need one if not in military battle. Why do you need automatic fire to deter a home invader, or someone on the street trying to take your wallet, or to hunt a deer?

    2) "People would be deterred from shooting if they thought others had guns." I can't really see it being a good idea to strap elementary school teachers and employees, so that simply does not apply here, nor do I think it would have applied in the theater shooting. Hundreds of people opening fire in a dark and smoky place would not have resulted in fewer deaths, nor would it have deterred an insane individual from opening fire. Additionally, I teach in Detroit, and our community is riddled with gun violence, and knowing "the other guy" might have one, too, does not deter anyone from violent acts. It does, however, make people much quicker to act and react out of fear. It also makes it possible for a 3rd grader to believe it is OK to bring a gun to school (as he did) because "someone else might have one."

    Of course, people will get their hands on guns if they want guns that badly. Better regulating the avenues of acquiring one as piece of the puzzle doesn't seem to be the worst idea out there, though.


    ETA: I found this interesting... #1 in particular: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/
    Last edited by starhorse; Dec. 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM. Reason: Added link


    5 members found this post helpful.

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Mar. 11, 2005
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    4,878

    Default

    Gold, you can't use the same gun on small game that you do on big game. At the same time, a .270 will work fine to drop a deer (even mule deer, which are quite larger than white tail) or antelope, but it less effective on elk. It'll work, but chances are you'll need more than one shot. And forget downing a moose with it. However, a .3006, which seems to work best on elk and moose, can do too much damage and leave less meat on a deer or antelope. Shotguns seem best for dove, quail, ducks...at least that's what I hear. We don't participate in that hunting because we hunt for food and it would take way too many birds to fill the freezer (we will take up to two animals to fill the freezer for the year...or one moose).

    THAT is why more than one hunting weapon, more than one caliber is usually necessary.

    And, again, you're hearing "semi-auto" and freaking out. In terms of handguns it primarily means you don't have to pull the hammer back each round.

    Finally, yes! I DO live in the Wild West! LOL!

    Mental health is an important subject to me. There is a history of paranoid schizophrenia in my family (now known and understood as bi-polar disease...same as Zelda Fitzgerald. Misunderstood diagnosis were rampant in that timeframe). Had the help been there versus asylums that just tranquilized and restrained, maybe things would have been different. Treatment is better now, but the availability and cost aren't. Not to mention the stigma.

    Then there's PTSD and TBI treatment. Everyone associates both with the military, but it's an everyday problem. One that's often ignored. It has to change.

    There simply is no rhyme or reason that can explain what happened yesterday. It...there are just no words. What is the answer? How do we actually keep our babies safe from evil? How do we offer condolences that surely seem so empty and hollow to those who have lost their entire world?

    I just don't know...
    "IT'S NOT THE MOUNTAIN WE CONQUER, BUT OURSELVES." SIR EDMUND HILLARYMember of the "Someone Special To Me Serves In The Military" Clique


    3 members found this post helpful.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    I simple look at Florida...



  5. #225
    Join Date
    Aug. 5, 2009
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happymom View Post
    I simple look at Florida...
    Call me dumb, but ??????


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Jun. 24, 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    8,123

    Default

    The simple fact is that apparently the shooter in this case got his mother's guns to do this. Apparently Norway has very strict laws, and the shooter there killed so many people I can't even grasp it, and bombed buildings. I think a truly determined person who wants to be famous, or terrify others will always succeed in doing this, unless they are discovered before it happens. I still hate that people who intend to do mass shooting and then commit suicide after, don't just harm themselves, but want to inflict pain and suffering on others.
    You can't fix stupid-Ron White


    3 members found this post helpful.

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Nov. 28, 2000
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    10,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcmel View Post
    OK, I accidentally green thumbed Traks post. Just so you know only 1 COTHer (so far) "appreciated" it.

    Sadly that number of people who 'like' that post has increased to eight.

    A FINE ROMANCE - JC Reg Thoroughbred - GOLD Premium CSHA - ISR/OLDNA Approved
    CSHA Brickenden Stallion Award Winner - for Performance offspring.
    Please visit A Fine Romance on FB!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    9,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JanM View Post
    The simple fact is that apparently the shooter in this case got his mother's guns to do this. Apparently Norway has very strict laws, and the shooter there killed so many people I can't even grasp it, and bombed buildings. I think a truly determined person who wants to be famous, or terrify others will always succeed in doing this, unless they are discovered before it happens. I still hate that people who intend to do mass shooting and then commit suicide after, don't just harm themselves, but want to inflict pain and suffering on others.
    Nevertheless, a LOT (a lot isn't even an adequate adjective) more people get killed with guns here than in Norway...


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,191

    Default

    I'd like to see mandatory gun training/education required in schools, and mandatory gun ownership required for each household. I'd also like to see teachers/school personel be required to carry one at school. It might help end this kind of thing sooner.

    Either that or have schools be required to have a certain # of armed guards for every 100 students. Something needs to be done, but banning guns isn't the answer when they are so easy to get. And I think homeowners should be able to defend themselves.

    I DO think automatic weapons should be banned.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Apr. 25, 2011
    Posts
    856

    Default

    betonbill
    Originally Posted by happymom
    I simple look at Florida...
    Call me dumb, but ??????
    I will not !

    This:
    I would like to talk Florida and what actually seems to be an anti right to life state.
    Not only has Scott (whose company paid the largest medicare settlement in US history) eliminated many locally determined gun regulations, he also mandated that doctors not discuss gun safe storage with patients having children in the house.
    He has removed funds for mental health help for children, opting for pharmacological assistance instead which will increase profits for the pharma companies.
    Stand Your Ground has become a state wide policy.
    He has approved a law allowing people to "briefly flash" their guns at will. Any and all pro gun laws are promoted and mental health issues are being ignored.
    I find myself afraid of ANY confrontational situation in FL and cower when in them as it has become a shoot first, think later state.
    Yes, I'm planning to leave....quickly.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  11. #231
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,650

    Default

    You know jetsmom, it's not just senseless gun violence that we have to worry about with guns, it's the suicide rate in households with guns.

    A Harvard study:

    "Miller and his colleagues Steven Lippmann, David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data to estimate rates of household firearm ownership in each of the 50 states and examined whether rates of suicide were related to rates of household gun ownership. They controlled for measures of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, drug and alcohol dependence and abuse, and mental illness. The researchers found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher rates of suicide by children, women and men. In the 15 states with the highest levels of household gun ownership, twice as many people committed suicide compared with the six states with the lowest levels, even though the population in both groups was about the same.

    The association between firearm ownership and suicide was due to higher gun-related suicides; non-gun-related suicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Also, suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts, are highly lethal--more than 90% of all suicidal acts by firearm are fatal. By comparison, individuals who use drugs to attempt suicide, which constitute 75% of all attempts, die in the attempt less than 3% of the time.

    The researchers recommend that firearm owners take steps to make their homes safer. "Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide," says Miller. "Removing firearms may be especially effective in reducing the risk of suicide among adolescents and other potentially impulsive members of their home. Short of removing all firearms, the next best thing is to make sure that all guns in homes are very securely locked up and stored separately from secured ammunition. In a nation where more than half of all suicides are gun suicides and where more than one in three homes have firearms, one cannot talk about suicide without talking about guns," he adds."
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #232
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    I DO think automatic weapons should be banned.
    Fully automatic weapons ARE banned (without a special license). converting a firearm to FA status is also illegal.

    I think you knew that!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #233
    Join Date
    Apr. 29, 2002
    Location
    Lots of M states...
    Posts
    543

    Default

    To jetsmom:

    I am a teacher, and I think it would be a terrible idea to give teachers guns for a lot of reasons. I'll stick with the few below.

    1) What messages would that be sending to students?
    2) A gun in every classroom would make it way too easy for a child or teenager to get their hand on a gun in a school environment. Sure, put it under lock and key, of course, but the room for error is there and the stakes are too great.
    3) If it was known that there was a gun to steal in every classroom, school thefts/break-ins (after hours or not) would likely go through the roof. Our school publicized the use of laptops in our classrooms, and we had a series of break-ins, thefts and arson trying to get to the goods. I imagine the same would happen with guns.
    4) Some personnel would be way too quick to get the gun, even just to threaten an individual or a student.
    5) Where do we draw the line in a school setting? Do PE teachers get them? Substitute teachers? Custodians?


    And as a reminder, statistics* show that in mass shootings, an overwhelming percent of shooters obtained their guns completely legally -- not by black market buying. There is a reasonable chance that eliminating these legal means would make a difference, at least in the case of these mass murders.

    *http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map


    8 members found this post helpful.

  14. #234
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    You know jetsmom, it's not just senseless gun violence that we have to worry about with guns, it's the suicide rate in households with guns.

    A Harvard study:

    "Miller and his colleagues Steven Lippmann, David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data to estimate rates of household firearm ownership in each of the 50 states and examined whether rates of suicide were related to rates of household gun ownership. They controlled for measures of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, drug and alcohol dependence and abuse, and mental illness. The researchers found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher rates of suicide by children, women and men. In the 15 states with the highest levels of household gun ownership, twice as many people committed suicide compared with the six states with the lowest levels, even though the population in both groups was about the same.

    The association between firearm ownership and suicide was due to higher gun-related suicides; non-gun-related suicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Also, suicide attempts using firearms, which constitute just 5% of all fatal and non-fatal attempts, are highly lethal--more than 90% of all suicidal acts by firearm are fatal. By comparison, individuals who use drugs to attempt suicide, which constitute 75% of all attempts, die in the attempt less than 3% of the time.

    The researchers recommend that firearm owners take steps to make their homes safer. "Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of suicide," says Miller. "Removing firearms may be especially effective in reducing the risk of suicide among adolescents and other potentially impulsive members of their home. Short of removing all firearms, the next best thing is to make sure that all guns in homes are very securely locked up and stored separately from secured ammunition. In a nation where more than half of all suicides are gun suicides and where more than one in three homes have firearms, one cannot talk about suicide without talking about guns," he adds."
    suicide is tragic, devastating for all who are impacted. Unfortunately, while guns in the house (for those who are inclined and who MAKE IT KNOWN) are absolutely one risk, so are any medications, household chemcials, and so forth. Sadly, if people are inclined, they will most definitely find a way; drive a car into a tree or oncoming traffic, step in front of a semi, take a family members medication, drink draino and on and on. Precisely why just talking about method (the guns!) does not really address whatever is going on emotionally with these folks, both the suicidal and homicidal ones.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  15. #235
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    12,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lilitiger2 View Post
    suicide is tragic, devastating for all who are impacted. Unfortunately, while guns in the house (for those who are inclined and who MAKE IT KNOWN) are absolutely one risk, so are any medications, household chemcials, and so forth. Sadly, if people are inclined, they will most definitely find a way; drive a car into a tree or oncoming traffic, step in front of a semi, take a family members medication, drink draino and on and on. Precisely why just talking about method (the guns!) does not really address whatever is going on emotionally with these folks, both the suicidal and homicidal ones.
    Did you actually read the article you quoted?
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #236
    Join Date
    Aug. 28, 2006
    Posts
    9,948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    I'd like to see mandatory gun training/education required in schools, and mandatory gun ownership required for each household. I'd also like to see teachers/school personel be required to carry one at school.
    Of course you would.
    Last edited by grayarabpony; Dec. 15, 2012 at 02:34 PM.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  17. #237
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    No, guns are used here as a hobby and for hunting and for vermin control.

    I don't think you can stack all that guns are used for against the few times they are used to kill someone, other than in wars and good luck getting soldiers to go to war without guns.
    Not meaning to single you out here, but a question for all gun rights (and I use that term loosely) people - how much collateral damage are you willng to accept? Is it 10 people, 200 people, 20,000 people a year? Where do we draw the line? Evidently it's okay to think, "well, I guess some people (including kids) will have to die each year because no one is allowed to interfere with my right to own a gun."

    I ask this basic question because it goes to the heart of the matter. Often times the weapons used in these massacres are not used for hunting Thumper or personal protection. They are specifically designed to kill people.

    And, I'll say it again...the government provides soldiers with the weapons needed. The days when soldiers brought their own guns to the battlefield are LONG gone.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    8 members found this post helpful.

  18. #238
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    I didn't quote any article.....?



  19. #239
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,208

    Default

    Oh sorry, that one took me a minute! My comments were based on personal experience, actually. Suicide for anhone who has been through or around it is so awful, but, as I said, those who truly are inclined will do it, no matter what is at hand.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  20. #240
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Go Fish View Post
    how much collateral damage are you willng to accept? Is it 10 people, 200 people, 20,000 people a year? Where do we draw the line?
    Ask car manufacturers, the FDA, FAA, insurance companies and hospitals, and the military/president and the judicial system.
    They all make decisions about how much collateral, in human lives, they and we are willing to tolerate. They make decisions about things that usually have a "benefit" and weigh it against a cost in human lives.


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Counties/States with strict neuter laws?
    By shea'smom in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jun. 12, 2012, 05:23 PM
  2. Differences in TBs from different countries
    By Starda01 in forum Racing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sep. 7, 2011, 01:11 PM
  3. Vacations - other countries
    By MyGiantPony in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Apr. 22, 2011, 05:14 PM
  4. How strict is AHS in approving TB mares?
    By flyracing in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2011, 12:57 PM
  5. How strict are you about Fescue?
    By DLee in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Apr. 14, 2010, 11:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •