Would the Connecticut elementary school toll have been smaller if...

...a couple staffers had been armed?

0 members like this

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Cox on January 12, 2013 at 2:28pm

Yes, 'inside' the chicken.

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 12, 2013 at 2:32pm

Can we vote for best answer somehow?

That's a winner.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 12, 2013 at 9:20pm

So the chicken crosses first, by a nose (er...beak).

Permalink Reply by Strega on January 12, 2013 at 9:56pm

Egged on, by the competition?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 12, 2013 at 11:01pm

Ewww... That's corny!

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 12, 2013 at 10:08am

It rolls in a wobbly way.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 12, 2013 at 10:15am

You got a point there Dino, this conversation should be about;

'How do we solve our mental illness problem?'

Instead it's about ways to violate the 2nd Amendment yet again.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 10, 2013 at 3:12pm

@Kris Feenstra

What exactly happens in Canada if I confront an intruder while I'm holding a gun and he produces a very nasty knife or Taserl and proceeds to use it? Do I need to drop my gun and kick him in the nuts?

You do not need to drop your gun. You merely need to accept the consequences of your actions which may or may not be a criminal charge (even if you killed the intruder) depending on whether you only took the steps necessary to defend yourself (not your property), or if you went beyond that and applied unreasonable force or acted as executioner.

Unfortunately, one can shoot someone and not know if one is killing him. One may even hope one is not killing him and yet it might turn out that way. For example, a well-intended shot to the leg that ruptures the femoral artery can kill someone in less than a minute.

So, I guess the best thing to do might be to close your eyes and hope you don't get killed.

Eh?

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 10, 2013 at 4:12pm

No wonder Canada calls their money "Loonie".

We have rules for gunfights too:

Rule number 1:

There are no rules in a gunfight.

Oh wait, there is one rule...Survive.

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on January 10, 2013 at 5:32pm

@ Kris have you always lived in a sheltered safe violence-free environment?

Kris you have obviously never been in a fight where someone else is trying to fuck you up, otherwise you would realize how ridiculous those rules are.

Twice as many people as a percentage of population assaulted in Canada as America, I now know why.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 10, 2013 at 7:47pm

(I)n 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people. (source)

I found this and a couple other articles seeming to show that while the homicide rate is much lower in Canada, the assault rate and rate of rapes was considerably higher in "peaceful" Canada.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on January 10, 2013 at 9:16pm

Well, when you have an inclusive definition of assault, that is what a Canadian considers assault, and one has to live with the statistics. Equally loose on rape stats in Canada? Does trying to grab a goodnight kiss without asking permission first constitute rape up there?