Newtown tragedy sparks calls for tighter gun laws

Strange. Thousands are killed or injured on autobahns each year....yet we never seem willing to ban autobahns.

If you wrote up a listing of all gun owners in a year, and then had the listing of 'gun-events'....it would be a very short list of maybe sixty people for the whole nation of Germany. To punish all gun owners in Germany for the actions of those sixty....defies common sense.

I agree, car accidents are bigger killers than gun crime in Germany and the US for that matter.

I think if they are so worried about stopping violent crime why don't they pass laws that forbid the use of cars, airplanes, ships, boats, trains, any type of chemical, learning about chemical compounds, mathematics that are used to produce chemicals, knives or any sharp object, gasoline, glass bottles, blunt objects, any tool that can be used as a weapon, toothbrushes because they can be fashioned into a weapon, any game, TV or movie that depicts violence and finally why don't we cut off our hands and feet because we can use them to beat people.

The point is that you ban anything you want but , anyone who wants to kill someone will do it using anything to get the job done. It is in our nature to kill each other and no policy or law will stop this behavior.

"...anyone who wants to kill someone will do it using anything to get the job done..."

Well this kid may have killed his mother without a gun. A knife, maybe. But, how could he have killed a school full of kids and teachers? A knife? Axe? Car? I don't think so. A bomb, maybe. But, that would have required months of preparation and probably been caught when he tried to buy the materials.

To kill 20 people in a short space of time without a lot of effort and planning is only achievable using a tool designed specifically for that purpose.

pepsionice not that I agree with your comparison of accidental death versus murder, Perhaps we should ban high performance autos on the bahn, for sure we would still have accidents but the number of fatalities would no doubt decrease as well as fuel use.

As far as firearms are concerned, I am mainly against military type automatic weapons and hand guns.Long guns, hunting rifles, shotguns as long s they are contained in a safe place controlled by the owner I have no problem with.

Canada has strict laws concerning handguns but not so with long guns. If you look at the crime rates per cap you see that non violent crime is very close but when you look at violent crimes committed with a hand gun they are very different.

Longer wait times for hand gun purchases has also been effective in reducing violence with hand guns and suicides.

A handgun is no good for hunting.Pulling a gun on someone can cost you your freedom, shooting someone stealing your auto can cost you your freedom.

If someone is breaking into your hose in the middle of the night, grab your shotgun.

blogboy "I think if they are so worried about stopping violent crime why don't they pass laws that forbid the use of cars, airplanes, ships, boats, trains" ....I think your idea of violent crimes and accidents needs an update.

These shootings and terrorist attacks always get people trying to change laws to prevent these incidents from happening. But the bottom line is that if someone really wants to kill lots of people, they will find the resources to do so.

However, As a hunter in Germany, I think the laws are adequate enough. In order to own a gun, you must be in a shooting club or go through a long intense hunting course to become a Jäger (hunter). Your guns and ammunition MUST be stored in a very heavy Type A or B gun safe and only the owner has possession of the key or combination. Guns are forbidden to be left "out" for self defense.

I take my precaution one step further by storing the key to my gun safe in a separate wall safe that only I know the combination to. The only way someone could get access to my hunting guns is to either try to break / crack the safe or read my mind. Neither of is likely to happen. I also keep any other dangerous items or Christmas presents I don't want getting found early in there too! :-)

I think If these laws were adhered to, I don't see the majority of school shootings in Germany happening. Anyway, the Green Party always gets on a soap-box every time something like this happens, so I am not surprised...

simple...mix diesel fuel with ammonium nitrate ( as was done in Oklamona federal building destruction) and you can kill hundreds,,, The writer is correct.... if someone wants to be brutal and deadly... it can happen with/without guns... Chemcial agents can be manufactured at home... Let's focus on the real problem... people and their ability to protect themselves..Guns are prohibited in schools and universities... so that is where gunmen go... Clear...?

I think rrandy has a good point.

I do hunt but don't own any pistols or military style semi-automatic "weapons" and I certainly don't have 50-60 guns lying around.

I think people who carry concealed weapons could use them too quickly, because they bought a gun "just in case" or have an accident or someone gets possession of it....just too risky the whole way around and think tight laws on hand guns are OK.

Personally, I can't say I've ever been in a situation where I needed a pistol.

"Guns are prohibited in schools and universities... so that is where gunmen go... Clear...?"

Sure! Give all teachers a gun and the shootings will stop! Clear as mud.

It's too early to tell in this case but in the past kids have gone back to their old school because it represents the root of their unhappiness - and they don't expect to survive the encounter. So, where does gun prohibition fit in to the equation? You really think that the people doing these shooting are rational at the time?

"simple...mix diesel fuel with ammonium nitrate..."

Breivik did the same. But, he had to register a farm and spent 6 weeks building his bomb. He then killed 8 people with it. However, he killed 69 people in a couple of hours with a gun.

It`s not the guns, it`s the anti-depressant meds:

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/lanza-bloomberg-obama-guns-psychiatric-meds-and-mass-hypnosis-in-newtown-connecticut/

Columbine, West Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Erfurt, Baden Württemberg, Congresswoman Gifford in AZ, Batman Shooter, and now Sandyhook School in Newtown--- all of the shooters were on meds. What could be clearer? Let that sink in-- ALL of the shooters were on meds.

A man murdered his mother and twenty children from close range. Do you really believe that banning firearms will remedy cases like this, which have been caused by psychosis inducing-medications?? As posters here have pointed out, banning the tools will not prevent future massacres- A maniac in China stabbed over 20 people, including children last week. We must address the real culprit, if we want real results.

Disarming the American people is not going to end these atrocities, but it will further the agenda of the globalists, who wish to eliminate all opposition to their Chekist-SWAT enforced police state. Turn off you TV. Don`t buy into their propaganda.

MK Ultra, anyone?

Hmmmm. What are the chances that the author of The Hunger Games lives in Sandy Hook?

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/two-movies-two-mass-murders/

Keep your eye on the ball, people. The powers that be are out to establish world gov`t and dismantling the Second Amendment is a key hurdle to be overcome before this can be realized.

As noted above

Crazy people that want to kill, will find a way.

in the US, Schools are by law "Gun free zones" no firearms allowed. So naturally killers target places where they know no one will be at hand to stop them before they carry out their insane mission.

Many theaters, shopping malls&churches are the same way. Any of them been targeted this year?

Yep

there has been a major shooting incident in a theater, mall & church in the last 6 months.

LeoS, no it is not going to go away, but we need to build a legal framework of making firearms more difficult for people to obtain, inorder to reduce the carnage we are experiencing now.Firearms as you pointed out is not the only factor, it is ,however one of them. To do nothing in the wake of this tragedy but argue over the age old gun debate does nothing to help prevent the next time or show any concern for the wasted young lives, and the horor their parents must be going through. I do not have the answers or the solution, but guns are a factor in the majority of these cases so I believe we should start there. As I said before Iam not against firearms per se nor the destruction of the 2nd amendment (but times are far different now then when it was created)only those with the purpose to kill another person, such as military style automatic weapons and handguns.

America has already become a police state. The days of individuals solving there own disputes are gone. Society has ,morally deteriorated,the family unit in many cases is not functioning. Present day attitude is " Iam fine and f^ck you." if Iam not fine then "I will f^ck you" .

The shooting in Newtown was done by an underage kid who owned no firearms and had a mental problem, he would not let his mother hug him. His mother bought the guns in an attempt to reach out to him. The National Rifle Association keeps records of reports by people who successfully used their guns to protect themselves and surprizingly the inumber of ncidents far outweight the number of homicides for any given year. Guns actually help to keep us civil. If no law abiding citizen had a gun then the incidence of home invasions and murder would increase because most violent criminals are bullies and they get excited about kicking someone's backside. Guns make the little guy able to confront the bully on equal terms. Be very careful about gun legislation because history has shown that it is not crime the government is interested in, it is population control in times of unrest. I have seen the looting disquised as riots in California and I do not want to be deprived of the only means to effectively protect myself in that kind of situation.

owiguard, i don't know where you are getting your stats, maybe the NRA?

here is a cut&paste I found trying to verify yours.

Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.

Fact: A gun in the home makesy homicide 2.7 times more likely.

"Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?"

In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.

Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

They are talking about making people register knives and such now in China!

Banning things does not solve the problem. It only leads you down a road of banning whatever is next.

The United States is not a European country. Do not think that you are ever going to get rid of guns. There are a lot of items (look at drugs) that are illegal yet find a way through the border.

I agree generally with those who say that gun crime and gun ownership are slightly correlated, but not enough to establish causality between the two. The US tops the table of per-capita gun ownership worldwide by far (Serbia comes a distant second with two-thirds of the US figure), while the US is not even featured in the top 10 countries with the highest gun-related death rate, which includes both homicides and suicides. If you consider solely the rate of homicides by firearm, then the US slides way, way further down the list.

Here are the 2 tables from Wikipedia, for anyone interested:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

I think that looking at the raw data with a level head is always good to take the emotion/hysteria/ideology out of this serious debate. And I say this as a rather anti-gun person.

Let's face it: the US is still a relatively safe place to spend time in.

If you're into statistics, you can also peruse this list of countries by homicide rate (any type of homicide).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The US appears rather average in that level, around the middle of the table, but then much much higher than most developed Western (or Eastern) nations. So it's rather on its homicide culture that the US needs to act on, not on the guns themselves.

I would personally believe that guns are too readily accessible in the US, and that this partly facilitates crime, but it is simplistic to connect the two. Gun ownership is unfortunately too emotional an issue in the US for any sensible policy or even debate to be considered, because interestingly it is featured in the US Constitution. Nothing has changed despite the 30-or-so shootouts in US schools since Columbine.

However, one couple of failed bombings in airplanes were enough to force any air traveller to remove their shoes, go through ever-deeper scrutiny and throw away any liquids from their hand luggage... Go figure. What a pity that the US Constitution does not have a provision for unimpeded air travel.

Some simple facts about the "gun control" debate in the USA.

1) Neither political party wants to address it b/c the population is split on the subject 47% to 47%. (Al Gore blames his loss in 2000 on his pro gun control opinion.)

2) Those in populated areas generally FAVOR gun control, those is rural areas generally DO NOT favor gun control. A rural area in the USA is NOT like a rural area in Germany or France where there is a village around every turn.

3) Over-30 years old white males generally do NOT favor gun control. Everyone else generally does.

4) The National Rifle Association aggressively works the mediums (TV, radio, print, e-blogs) to shift the attention to asking "WHY did this happen?" As I type they are trying to contact the parents and leaders in Newton to ensure they divert their energy into asking "Why" and ensure they do not say "No more guns."

These are simple facts. It is politics in its most basic form. Politicians want to get re-elected.

Unfortunately, a city like Chicago, which has strict anti-gun laws, has no way to protect its populace b/c just on the other side of their city boundary 50% of the guns involved in shootings and murders are sold. Another 40% come from a couple of gun super stores in Georgia.

Perhaps, it is the wrong question that is being addressed. Of course, people will still kill people, anti-depressants will have nasty side-effects and it has been known for a good guy to occasionally shoot a bad one. However, shouldn't the question really be: if firearm restrictions were in place, would the number of people saved be worth the freedom lost?

From this point of view, I agree with LecteurX, the lost-freedom-cost of post-911 security is extremely high compared with the probable life-saved benefits. Whereas a little investment in firearm freedom-loss would give much better returns in lives saved.

@ SchwabHallRocks - Thank you for the information you gave here too. I think this is exactly what the US needs here: a dispassionate debate and some measures.

In 2010, 12,996 murders were committed in the US, of which 8,775 were committed by firearms. That gives you an average of 24 homicides be firearm per day in the US, or 1 per hour.

juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html

This shows that these shootouts in schools, shocking as they are, account for only one tiny part of the whole sum of gun violence in the US.

Furthermore, by using the 2010 data, we can calculate that approximately 72 people have been shot down all over the US since Friday, which is already much more than the grand total of 58 murders by firearms committed in the whole of Great Britain in 2011.

Maybe we're on to something there. The US needs to address its weird gun worship. Who needs whole arsenals of semi-automatic weapons in their cellars? Who needs to carry concealed weapons while going to the mall? Restricting the sale of some categories of weapons, within reason, would not go against that holy cow known as Second Amendment, but it would decrease the frequency of these horrific mass-murders on US schools and campuses, since the would-be perpetrators would find it much harder to lays their hands on the highly-efficient murder machines they favour in the first place.

I do not naively believe that it would significantly decrease the overall homicide rate in the US, though, but at least one small part of the problem, the most shocking and unfair one indeed, would already be partly addressed.

To decrease overall gun violence would require the implementation of a few European-style policies aimed at reducing inequality, making society more humane, etc., which are anathema in the US anyway, and dismissed as "socialism". So never mind that. Americans want their "freedom" and all the "mild inconveniences" that come with them. Good for them, since that's what they want.

But it's quite shocking to see that close nothing has been done to effectively curb that type of violence on schools since the Columbine massacre. People keep throwing their hands to the sky, shed a few tears again and again, and proceed to piling up deadlier weapons under the benign eye of the legislator. And then, they happily take off most of their clothes and shoes and give up any liquids prior to boarding a plane as if it was the most normal thing to do, because of a couple of failed attacks.

Weird, weird, weird.

LecteurX thats true enough, but people are no longer enjoying life, as in the past. We have little gratification other than a paycheck at the end of the day. People are no longer envolved in community or school.Now everyone is either playing with their handy or have their face stuck in an ipad.

Stay out of my space and I will do the same. We are more isolated today than a 100 years ago.

Ya, they are more like sheep , get in line take off your shoes ,no use questioning, you will be painted with problem brush,same as complaining ,its all phony ,corporate crap taught through our educational system.

Now its starting to unravel, signs of moral decay are everywhere , and nobody really cares .so guess we are we are ,because we have given up on who we were.

@ Schwabhallrocks Chicago has a failure of its anti-gun policy due to illegally obtained guns, not due to those legally obtained in neighboring counties or other states. It is just as easy to buy a handgun in Chicago as it is to buy drugs.

LecteurX -

Yes - some rational debate about the benefits to society as a whole would be useful but won't happen in part b/c people are arguing from their "belief" systems and not interested in data.

Also, the gun murder rate is actually irrelevant in a way. I would encourage you to read the Saturday, Dec 15, Wall Street Journal, which well documents that the gun murder rate is strongly affected by a medical system that saves people who are shot.

For example, in Chicago there have been 450 gun murders this year but actually several thousand have been shot which is more telling than the murder rate.

Further, Chicago and the USA do not track hand-gun violence per se. I.e. someone shot with a gun is reported / tracked as an "aggravated assault" not a hand gun assault.

Northwestern University tried to use the Freedom of Information Act two years ago to determine how many persons are shot in Chicago, and got nowhere. (NRA influence?)

Additionally, most police, from what I've learned, are shot with their own weapon and miss their criminal target The point being that a criminal probably has a worse accuracy rate than a police man.

Thus, Chicago has hundreds shot to death, thousands shot and injured, and probably tens of thousands shot at but not hit... but this data is simply not tracked nor reported per se. Hard to have a rational debate without fair data.

Bulldawg - no cretins allowed. Stay home in Georgia with your confederate flag and tell us the civil war was not about slavery.

Schwabhallrock. I live in Illinois so blow it out your porthole moron.

Bulldawg - My sincere apologies.

Chicago Tribune had detailed analysis about a month or so ago on a Sunday.

50% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were legally purchased in Tinley Park and I think Bell Wood (Chicago suburbs). Another 40% from two super stores in Georgia.

(Anyhow -read the article. The guns used in Chicago to kill, injure, rape, and rob, are not originating in Chicago.)

There is nothing to stop these guns coming into Chicago at the borders. Screening everyone coming into Chicago a la O'Hare airport is not practical.

Hundreds murdered, 1000s shot, tens of thousands shot at and missed... And no data being kept.

@raandy

I have read your posts over time and know that you have a good heart. As a parent of small children, I too feel for these bereaved parents who are now suffering through "every parent`s worst nightmare"- it must be a horror beyond words.

That is why I am for controlling or even banning the anti-depressants that turn people into these numb killing machines. As I wrote above, ALL of the shooters have been on these meds. ALL. So the drugs are not a factor, they are THE factor. Violent and/or suicidal psychotropic reactions are listed in the written side-effects that come with the packaging!! And they occur in a dangerously high number of patients. Check out the links to the articles in my earlier post for more details on them, if you like. America is the most medicated country in the world, and if we want to stop these atrocities we have to ban the meds and hold big Pharma accountable.

The Second Amendment is there so that the American people can defend themselves from tyranny, both domestic and foreign. It is not there to protect the right to hunt, to sport shoot, or to collect- it is there so that the people can defend their rights against a tyrant.

"America has already become a police state."

That`s right. I hope that the people there can re-instate the Constitution and the rule of law, but if all else fails they are armed.

According to michael4096

"Guns are prohibited in schools and universities... so that is where gunmen go... Clear...?

Sure! Give all teachers a gun and the shootings will stop! Clear as mud."...

Are you living in a bubble? On the very same day as this shooting (last Friday) a man in central China attacked 20 school children. The number of deaths in China? ZERO! That's because the only weapon available to the attacker was a knife. Let's see if you are capable of doing the math: Guy with gun = 27 dead. Guy who could only get his hands on a knife = 0 dead. Even your pea sized brain should be able to grasp the difference.

Typical German over reaction. The same thing they've done with nuclear energy.

Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen

more censorship by the media.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were round

ed up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and ex

terminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Harvard criminologists show (with international statistics) that more guns does NOT equal more violent crime..... and conversely that fewer guns do not equal less violent crime.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

So you have to ask yourself........ are you after results? or are you just being authoritarian? I say it's the latter. This is my opinion. I don't care WHAT the facts say. What I say goes and you may not own guns.

That about it?

Classic bait and switch. Having won an election on the economy will definetly be getting better, certain political elements in the U.S. who have no plan to fix the economy must change the debate.

The children are used as a tool by a cynical government to attack Constitutional limits to their power. The same Politicians and Judges who made it impossible to incarcerate or commit crazies like the shooter, now propose disarming normal Citizens attempting to defend themselves.

All of which will need less Freedom, more taxes, more power for politicians, etc.

The people responsible for the most deaths in Germany, Great Britain and the U.S. is the Government, so all three Governments should have their powers limited by a strong Constitution and Bill of Rights that severely limits the power of the Government and insures Freedom of Speech, and a Right to Keep and Bear Arms remains in the hands of the People.

After two World Wars brought about by the Politicians a very sound argument can be made that it is safer to let the crazies hold the weapons than the organized gangs of killers we call political parties.

Tell the Politicians to fix the worlds economies now and stop argueing about powers that nobody has given you.

gun owners are so paranoid. Nobody has said a word about taking away guns. People just want to have a discussion about enforcing laws that are or were already in place. People need to stop being so alarmist and crazy, take their own meds, put on their big girl/big boy panties, and come to the table and have a discussion like adults instead of running around like chickens, "They're COMING for my GUNZZZ!" Relax. The problem with liberals is that they are so effin' tolerant. We're not going to take your precious guns. We'll shake our heads and judge you in our minds, but we're not taking your stuff.

Paranoia to the extreme.

Once more from the top...

it`s the meds:

http://naturalsociety.com/predictions-confirmed-shooter-adam-lanza-was-on-violence-linked-anti-psychotic-fanapt/

Always has been, always will be.

@charlenej

Come sit here said the spider to the fly.

You need to seriously look at what most all governments the world over tend to do. It's called incrementalism. Remember way back in 1913 when the American government said. If you let us create an income tax amendment. We will only tax you at 1 percent. I bet the average citizen pays a fair bit more than 1% now. At one time it was as high as 94%. That is incrementalism. They get their foot in the door. Then push it open little by little.

You should read a bit of history about why the founding fathers put in the second amendment in the first place. Even though THEY were the first government of the USA. Even then they did not trust those in power to not seek yet more power. The government therefore put in not only the political checks and balances of three offices of the government. They put in a fourth checking influence to the government powers. They gave the citizens the right to own guns so that should it ever need be. They can overthrow a tyrannical government. They thought that is was so important for the citizens to have guns. That they did not just pass a law allowing it. They codified it into the bill of rights within the constitution. And then made the bills of rights rather difficult to change. Further. Look at most forms of government that start out as some form of republic. They all eventually go down the road to Vertical-Collectivism, Socialism, Communism. It's always starts out with mildly restraining the rights of the individual for the benefit of all. Which is not always a bad thing. Trouble is. Once a government grants it's self power to take more rights away from people for the greater good. They ALWAYS will go to far.

So. Do I think I will need my guns any time soon to keep the government in check? No. Not really. But. At the same time. I feel pretty healthy right now. And I'm a safe driver. But I will not go and cancel my health and auto insurance and stop wearing a seat belt. I don't buy insurance or put on my seat belt hoping to use it. I have it "just in case".

No. The bigger problem is. We in America stopped teaching our kids the difference between right and wrong. If a kid fails in school. The parents are more likely to go to the school and give the teacher crap for flunking their little angel by giving them to much homework. Kids in school are taught that there are no losers. They all get ribbons even if they finish in last place. When a kid does something stupid. They are told that it's not really their fault. Then they either graduate or drop out of school. And find that the world does not operate on the basis of no one loses. They have no idea how to handle that. And those that are unstable can sometimes lash out as this killer in Connecticut did.

I think the bigger problem is SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors these drugs which are ment to handle Depression, Anxiety, Scophrenia (spelled wrong) and a number of mental issues are the problem. These drugs which were introduced in the 1990's were at that time not tested in teen and are not ment for teen use. Let's face it the reason we call them teen is they are in development, or rather on the way to becoming adults. They have fluctioning hormones, they are on the way to becoming adults. Parents in America are constantly trying to get there chrildren on these drugs simply to keep them druged up so they don't have to deal with the problems. There is also a incestous relationship between the FDA and the pharmacutical companies, this relationship needs a to be looked at a lot closer, I think what Amy Goodman talked about on Demrocracy Now about the banning of Assult Rifles in Australia the country Down Under in 1997 after a school shooting there is a Excellant Idea, but no matter what the world will always have guns and expecially illeagal guns, including assult rifles. I again feel that the root problem is SSRI, all the shooters have been on them and I think all but 1 have been minors, there are more than 70 shootings in the adult population who have been on these SSRI's, and when you consider about 3,000,000 million people on these drugs the shootings I think was quoted as being less than 1/10 of 1 percent.