Jump to content

Shooting At A Connecticut Elementary


61 replies to this topic

#21 bug3at3r

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 275 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:14 PM

View PostInsidious Johnson, on 14 December 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Someone dropped the ball.


I'll say. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but we need better solutions to keep mentally ill people clear the **** away.

#22 SyberSmoke

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 249 posts
  • LocationOrbiting Reality

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:53 PM

View Postbug3at3r, on 14 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:


I'll say. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but we need better solutions to keep mentally ill people clear the **** away.


It is a matter of proper diligence, to find people that constitute a threat to society. Once identified they need to be dealt with either through counseling, changes to their life, medications, incarceration, or execution. Banning a tool will only place that tool in the hands of the people you do not what to have it while keeping it out of the hands of people that you may want to have it. So the inevitable talk about gun control will be moot since in the end, guns do not kill people, people kill people.

Well and physics...

#23 Mavairo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,251 posts

Posted 14 December 2012 - 11:00 PM

The reason this keeps happening in unarmed zones is precisely that. Because they are zones where people are not armed nor expecting the need to be.

It also doesn't help that the media gives these people the spotlight each and every time it happens either.

My sincerest condolences go out to any that have suffered because of this nutbag.

Someone earlier mentioned the whole 2012 end of the world thing, and with as nuts as these people are it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that's why they felt they should do it now.

Edited by Mavairo, 14 December 2012 - 11:01 PM.


#24 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:04 AM

View Postbug3at3r, on 14 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:


I'll say. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but we need better solutions to keep mentally ill people clear the **** away.


Unfortunately it's not always that simple. In this case, Connecticut already has fairly tight gun laws, as I understand it, and the shooter wasn't old enough to obtain these weapons himself in any legal fashion himself. The law already has gone about as far as it reasonably can because the shooter was already ineligible to obtain the handguns he used; he just got them anyways by going to a family member.


This is exactly why Pht and others are correct about the problem here. You can't guarantee guns will be out of the hands of "bad guys" (whether they're ill or whatever), and as our society becomes increasingly gun-sterile, the effect is simply to create more zones of free victims. We're not as bad as the UK, of course, who banned handguns a decade ago and saw their gun crime rate double afterward, but I fear we're trending too much in that direction. I hate to say it, but if I had to guess, I'd say the reason schools are targeted by madmen is probably just that; they're completely defenseless. Now, my schools in Goffstown, NH, wouldn't have had this problem; they have an armed officer on the campus during school hours. Obviously, though, that's not a universal solution. Even if you could do that in every school in America (which might not be unreasonable), police can't be everywhere, and there are plenty of other "gun free zones" to target.

The other problem is, of course, that once again if I'm hearing reports right, this is a case where we have a person with unaddressed mental health problems that exploded because they weren't dealt with. I mean, to an extent, I think that we're seeing a lot of this because we're in an economic downturn, and desperate times breed desperate people. The 1920s (a bad economic time for many despite outward appearances) and 1930s were pretty damned violent too, probably why the NFA was passed in 1934 for all the good it's -not- done. More than that, though, I feel like we have a serious dearth of access to mental health care in this country. I'm no expert, not even close, but when these shootings almost always have in common mental health issues that should have been addressed, just like with the theater shooting and the VA Tech shooting, I feel like that's the first place to look.

You're not going to keep crazies away from guns, because no society has really ever succeeded at that, but we'd do well to examine why we have so many crazies in the first place. I feel like a lot of these people should have been given help for their issues long before it came to outbursts like this; that they didn't seems to me to be a problem with either diagnosing people correctly, or having the resources available to give help when it's warranted.

Edited by Catamount, 15 December 2012 - 08:06 AM.


#25 SteelyDan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 305 posts
  • LocationChicago Ill

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

I just got home from going to the Museum of Science and Industry, in Chicago with my daughter's class...
I chaperoned for the first time, EVER! and I had fun...
Then, I come home, and this was all over the news. I shivered...
Those children, didn't deserve to die.
20 kids Christmas Gifts, that will never be opened, and a sad New Years.

You have school age kids, volenteer your time, spend time with them, no matter how old they are...
Because, you never know....


Edit: Didn't want the Vocab Police, writing me a Ticket...

Edited by SteelyDan, 15 December 2012 - 12:20 PM.


#26 Paul BlackJack Cady

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationLyran Sector, Planet: Canal, Primary Base HQ

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

View Postbug3at3r, on 14 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

To my understanding he went straight for his mother, so I'm guessing family issues.

Why the sick coward then turned on children oblivious to any of his family issues is beyond me.

he had already killed his mother at her home, they do not understand why he went to the school....

View PostPerfecto Oviedo, on 14 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I just hope this changes something in this country...

I like change too...but change what??

View Postchaz706, on 14 December 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

3) Not to start flame-wars, but this sort of thing could happen (and has happened) before guns existed. Taking any sort of weapon away from anyone for any reason will do nothing to prevent this sort of tragedy (or lessen the odds of it repeating) in the future.


also not to start a flame war!!

On the same note, what about the chineese school that that kid walked in with a knife and stabbed 22 students to death...
why is that getting any less attention or is being swept under the rug??

#27 Tex Arcana

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • LocationStark Industries: Sector 16.

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

View PostCatamount, on 15 December 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:


We're not as bad as the UK, of course, who banned handguns a decade ago and saw their gun crime rate double afterward, but I fear we're trending too much in that direction.

Please, please, PLEASE do not use inaccurate information in order to back-up an argument.
The Home Office is actually showing a drop in Gun Crime based on the new methods of recording that were introduced (more accurate tracking of firearms related crime since the early 2000's).

And the UK bears NO weight in a social comparison to the US when it comes to Gun Crime in any case: The rate of Gun Crime in the UK is a flyspeck compared to the rate in the US.
And one should also note that nearly 30% of the Gun Crimes recorded in the UK since the legislation was introduced include bloody pellet guns, and imitation (model) guns.
I won't wade into the American obsession with guns; as (like many on the outside looking in) I find it a "head scratcher" as to why handguns and assault rifles are allowed to be widely owned at all.
America's Gun Crime problem is her's alone. And is one of it's worst legacies. SHE needs to deal with it.
Suffice to say the the killings in Connecticut are reprehensible. And my heart goes out to the families effected by it.
'Nuff said.

Edited by Tex Arcana, 15 December 2012 - 12:06 PM.


#28 Paul BlackJack Cady

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationLyran Sector, Planet: Canal, Primary Base HQ

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:00 PM

View PostRedoxin, on 14 December 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Small correction. What I read on the net is that teachers in Connecticut are allowed to carry concealed if the school management is ok with it.

Although I have to say your "solution" sounds very much like a knee-jerk reaction.

what's so knee-jerk? Ryft made no solution?

#29 Paul BlackJack Cady

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationLyran Sector, Planet: Canal, Primary Base HQ

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:14 PM

View PostTex Arcana, on 15 December 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

Please, please, PLEASE do not use inaccurate information in order to back-up an argument.
The Home Office is actually showing a drop in Gun Crime based on the new methods of recording that were introduced (more accurate tracking of firearms related crime since the early 2000's).

And the UK bears NO weight in a social comparison to the US when it comes to Gun Crime in any case: The rate of Gun Crime in the UK is a flyspeck compared to the rate in the US.
And one should also note that nearly 30% of the Gun Crimes recorded in the UK since the legislation was introduced include bloody pellet guns, and imitation (model) guns.
I won't wade into the American obsession with guns; as (like many on the outside looking in) I find it a "head scratcher" as to why handguns and assault rifles are allowed to be widely owned at all.
America's Gun Crime problem is her's alone. And is one of it's worst legacies. SHE needs to deal with it.
Suffice to say the the killings in Connecticut are reprehensible. And my heart goes out to the families effected by it.
'Nuff said.

I believe the point being on the banning of handguns...not the number of reported crimes involving a shooting....
sorry if you miss understood. ;)

#30 Attackmack

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 39 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:28 PM

Arming everyone will cause more problems then it will solve, thats what I firmly believe.

That said, however, these incidents happening all over the world lately (though mainly in the US) wont be stopped by banning/removing guns either. Youll always be able to get your hands on a firearm, if you really want to. And besides, there are other ways to cause horrible damage, guns just make it easier. In china there have been several incidents the past years where a single man has entered a kindergarden and, armed with a knife, killed as many children as he can until overthrown by witnesses or shot down by police.

There are 2 things common for many (not all, but many) of the assailants in these tragedies worldwide though.
1. They've been in need of help and treatment for mental illness and depression. This has been known to others previous to their acts of violence.

2. They have not received any help, or too little of it.

#31 Tex Arcana

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • LocationStark Industries: Sector 16.

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:20 PM

View PostPaul BlackJack Cady, on 15 December 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I believe the point being on the banning of handguns...not the number of reported crimes involving a shooting....
sorry if you miss understood. :)

That is neither here. Nor there.
The statement was that the UK's gun crime rate DOUBLED after the passing of the 1997 bill,
This statement is (of itself) inaccurate: The rate had an initial "doubling effect" because (primarily) the Bill ADDED offences to the Law; these themselves contributed to an increase in charges being laid.
The statistics that have been compiled since the introduction of the 1997 bill are now indicating that (new laws and all) that the gun crime rate is steadily dropping in the UK.
And in any case: Having been around the block a few times on this topic (and having realised that the only cure is for America to sort out their addiction to Firearms) I have seen far to many pro-concealable/assault rifle threads try to cite the UK as an example.
As far as I'm concerned: Trying to win any pro-gun argument by citing stats from any other Western Nation immediately loses the argument.
As there is no other developed Western Nation with gun crime statistics that approach America's (One could argue that South Africa is a well developed Nation; but that itself is another can of worms).

Edited by Tex Arcana, 15 December 2012 - 02:22 PM.


#32 Evil Ed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 527 posts
  • LocationStavanger, Norway

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostPaul BlackJack Cady, on 15 December 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

On the same note, what about the chineese school that that kid walked in with a knife and stabbed 22 students to death...
why is that getting any less attention or is being swept under the rug??


22 chinese schoolchildren were stabbed, BUT THEY ALL SURVIVED!

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ack-school.html

#33 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:05 PM

View PostTex Arcana, on 15 December 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

That is neither here. Nor there.
The statement was that the UK's gun crime rate DOUBLED after the passing of the 1997 bill,
This statement is (of itself) inaccurate: The rate had an initial "doubling effect" because (primarily) the Bill ADDED offences to the Law; these themselves contributed to an increase in charges being laid.
The statistics that have been compiled since the introduction of the 1997 bill are now indicating that (new laws and all) that the gun crime rate is steadily dropping in the UK.
And in any case: Having been around the block a few times on this topic (and having realised that the only cure is for America to sort out their addiction to Firearms) I have seen far to many pro-concealable/assault rifle threads try to cite the UK as an example.
As far as I'm concerned: Trying to win any pro-gun argument by citing stats from any other Western Nation immediately loses the argument.
As there is no other developed Western Nation with gun crime statistics that approach America's (One could argue that South Africa is a well developed Nation; but that itself is another can of worms).


I'd be curious to see your source there; it sounds like an interesting aspect to that nation's gun statistics that I'm not aware of.

As for the notion that no other nation can be used as evidence of the effectiveness of gun laws, I'm not sure how you could possibly draw that conclusion. What does it matter if our gun violence rate differs from that of other nations? What tangible evidence do you have that that would have any impact on the influence of a particular piece of legislation?


I don't think that one could suggest that a lack of any apparent positive effect in one country is conclusive evidence that such lack of effect would necessarily follow in another, but it's hardly irrelevant, as you suggest. If another society tries a solution and it fails, and you can't offer any evidence that we'd do any better, then why should there be any reason to believe that we would do better?

Your argument seems to me to be tantamount to saying that just because communism failed in the USSR, that isn't in any way any kind of evidence that it would fail if implemented in the US, because the US is a different society. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Just because two societies differ doesn't mean there are no similarities in their behavior, or the response of that behavior to societal changes, therefore I would absolutely look to other societies for lessons on what to do and not to do in ours.


It's really neither here nor there, since the US offers plenty of evidence against a need for gun control in the fact that, despite gun sale surges, homicide rates with all weapons in the US are steadily dropping, including gun homicides. Somehow, a massive increase in gun sales the last few years, especially since 2009, didn't seem to do anything to that trend, which would seem to me to undermine any argument that introducing more owned guns is having a negative impact on crime rates. If it is, then it's no effect that I can see in our crime statistics.

Nevertheless, I fail to see your reasoning regarding other countries, and the UK is hardly the only source of evidence one could look at.

Edited by Catamount, 15 December 2012 - 07:07 PM.


#34 Vanguard319

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,436 posts
  • LocationTerra

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

Ban guns, and people like this will use knives, ban knives, and they'll use crowbars, ban those, and they'll improvise a weapon, Even if you figured out how to remove every object that could potentially be used to kill, you still have bare hands. It's impossible to make society danger free because as long as someone wants to see sombody dead, they will find a way to make it happen.

The best you can hope to do is regulate weapons, so they aren't sold to at-risk people to begin with, and if you own a gun, make sure it is stored in a fashion where it is not easily accessible, keep it locked up, and store it's ammo seperately, and securely. (If you really want to go all out, remove the bolt/reciever and store that seperately as well.)

#35 Dirus Nigh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,382 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:02 PM

View PostRyft, on 14 December 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:


I don't usually feel moved to make a political statement in the wake of a terrible event like this. It seems like a cheap tactic. However, the real tragedy is deeper than even this sad day. The real tragedy to me is why this keeps happening! When will people learn from the past and guard their futures with common sense?

These horrible things happen because deranged individuals targets places where victims dwell in large numbers.

And by victims, I mean people who can't shoot back. People like children, and people like teachers who can't carry legally at work (because it's a school campus).

There is a reason that you don't hear about mass rampage shootings at police departments or biker rallies. Certain types of individuals are known to carry weapons, and to shoot back when provoked. Terrorists do not target their victims randomly... they are bullies who prey on the weak.

A disarmed population is a vulnerable one. No one seems to get this. Everyone seems afraid of the common sense solution.

My deepest sympathies to anyone involved in this terrible event. Even for those not personally touched by this act of violence, it casts a dark cloud over what should be a happy time of year.


I do not own a firearm. Why should you? Because some one might shoot you? To me you are that person.

#36 Arafinar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • LocationCinci, OH

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:05 PM

View PostVanguard319, on 15 December 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Ban guns, and people like this will use knives, ban knives, and they'll use crowbars, ban those, and they'll improvise a weapon, Even if you figured out how to remove every object that could potentially be used to kill, you still have bare hands. It's impossible to make society danger free because as long as someone wants to see sombody dead, they will find a way to make it happen.

The best you can hope to do is regulate weapons, so they aren't sold to at-risk people to begin with, and if you own a gun, make sure it is stored in a fashion where it is not easily accessible, keep it locked up, and store it's ammo seperately, and securely. (If you really want to go all out, remove the bolt/reciever and store that seperately as well.)

Banning guns for related deaths is comparable to banning cutlery for resulting heart disease
(biggest killer in the US) related deaths.

#37 Evil Ed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 527 posts
  • LocationStavanger, Norway

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:52 PM

Dear americans,

In a democracy compromising is a natural thing. So let me propose this solution: Why don't you arm the in general peaceful and protecting part of your population and at the same time in disarm (and make it very illegal to carry/own/handle any kind of gun) the in general aggresive, and to be honest, more often then not slightly ******** group of people in which a vast majority of the perpetrators of the most of these extreme acts of violence are included?
To be clear, make it more or less mandatory for the american women to be armed! At the same time, make it illegal for the american men to own/carry/handle guns. Problem solved, NRA get's the high weapon density, especially at places where thoose horrible shootings has taken place and att the same time the part of the population not fitted to handle weapons is disarmed.
Maybe a bitter pill to swallow?

#38 Ryft

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:57 AM

View PostDirus Nigh, on 15 December 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:


I do not own a firearm. Why should you? Because some one might shoot you? To me you are that person.


I'm the person that, what, will shoot at you? That's quite unlikely. There are only two conditions under which I would shoot at you.

1) We are playing a videogame, and I am shooting you "virtually".
2) You initiated violent force against me or someone around me.

Not a lot of experience with decent, practical folk I take it? Some of us actually follow rules like the second one above. You should spend more time among civilized, rational people. Not only do we not shoot people needlessly, but we also take care of our fellow citizens.

#39 Shredhead

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 1,939 posts
  • LocationLeipzig, Germany

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:04 AM

View PostRyft, on 16 December 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:


[Snip...] Not only do we not shoot people needlessly, but we also take care of our fellow citizens.

While I agree that disarming all citizens is no viable solution, especially in the US, I have to disagree on the second quoted statement. You (as a people, not personally) do not take enough care of your fellow citizens. There are not enough places and institutions to keep these lost people from falling, the whole US society is based on selfishness and hard elbows. You will have to change as a whole, in your relations to your fellow citizens be they rich, poor or even homeless.
If Doctors Without Borders had to be active in my country to keep the poor from dying I would be massively ashamed! But I think those massive changes would go a long hard way in a country where people don't even know the difference between social, socialist and communist...

All that said I am really sorry for the parents and relatives and friends of those who were murdered in that shooting. I can't even imagine the grief and the loss!

#40 Gaius Quentius Quentii

    Member

  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:35 AM

Yeah, I get it already: after such a terrible tragedy, you class acts will be hugging your guns a little tighter.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users