View Full Version : Gunman shoots in elementary school in Connecticut
This is so awful. At first, the news said that only 1 teacher died and the gunman was killed. But now its coming out that perhaps 15 children were killed. PLEASE don't let this be true!!
Mighty Frugal
12-14-12, 12:51pm
This makes me sick. Why would anyone want to shoot others-especially children. And so close to he holidays. I am weeping for those poor little ones-what dreadful news
Oh god......now they're saying at least 27 dead. This has to stop!! These poor little children. I'm sick to my stomach.
It's heartbreaking, and the political cowardice that allows near unfettered access to deadly weapons makes me as ill as these deaths do.
Ditto, Redfox.
I particularly like, "political cowardice".
I wonder what is going on with our world/society nowadays, where everyone is so angry? People so bent on destroying lives for no reason.
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 1:25pm
This is just so crazy and upsetting. There is no excuse for this - none. Those poor families and those children senselessly deprived of their lives. And so awful too coming on the heels of the senseless shooting at the Clackamas Town Mall in suburban Portland, OR. That one really got to me too as I (in my earlier spending days) used to go to this mall a lot when I lived in Portland. What is this world coming to? The liberals will blame conservatives and the consevatives will blame liberals, I for one would like to step above this fray and just ask what is the world coming to? I think this one goes beyond political beliefs or affiliation. And what else is upsetting is that now we may even need to undergo a background check just to sneeze - society is getting to this point. How did we get here - beyond the blame and the politics, how did we get here? Rob
They are now reporting 27 killed and 18 of the killed were children. This is so sad. All of the children will suffer from this the rest of their lives. We must stop gun violence. The 2nd amendment is not worth the lives of 18 children.
My the victims rest in peace.
Like every other similar event, this is tragic beyond my ability to even comprehend it. It's time to very seriously and earnestly address WHY this keeps happening. The answer is probably complicated, most likely painful and the cause will be hard to fix. We need to all work together to cure this disease, if that is even possible, rather than continue to debate symptoms. What are we doing, or aren't we doing, that keeps producing people who are disturbed enough to harm others in this way?
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 1:27pm
They are now reporting 27 killed and 18 of the killed were children. This is so sad. All of the children will suffer from this the rest of their lives. We must stop gun violence. The 2nd amendment is not worth the lives of 18 children.
My the victims rest in peace.Me thinks that when that amendment was made we didn't have monsters on the loose killing 18 schoolchildren and nine others.....Something to think about perhaps to those who will disagree. Rob
We must stop gun violence.
It's not simply a 2nd Ammendment issue. How about we just stop the violence. Period.
1078
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 1:30pm
How about we just stop the violence. Period.
Let's start with the presidential kill list, then after that program is err... terminated, then we can move on to ending the wars ....
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 1:30pm
Like every other similar event, this is tragic beyond my ability to even comprehend it. It's time to very seriously and earnestly address WHY this keeps happening. The answer is probably complicated, most likely painful and the cause will be hard to fix. We need to all work together to cure this disease, if that is even possible, rather than continue to debate symptoms. What are we doing, or aren't we doing, that keeps producing people who are disturbed enough to harm others in this way?Big Big Big +1 from me on this. I do however suspect the rot at the root cause of this may make many twist and squirm....Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 1:31pm
How about we just stop the violence. Period.Round of applause from me on this! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 1:35pm
I wonder what is going on with our world/society nowadays, where everyone is so angry? People so bent on destroying lives for no reason.This is my take, Mrs. M, and I could very well be wrong, as I can't get into the minds of those who commit such acts I see a society in which the money is concentrating into fewer and fewer hands but there is a continued pressure/expectation to be a "winner" and not a "loser" but no real means to get to the side of "winner" for many - I think this leads some to snap. I am however sure there are other reasons, too. Rob
On NBC news an FBI person just said that on average there are 20 mass shooting a year in the US and that is a 20 year average. Yes I know guns don't kill people do. If there were fewer guns in the hands of nuts there would fewer mass killings.
Tussiemussies
12-14-12, 2:05pm
So sorry for these poor children and what their families must be going through...
Just came on the news that the shooter's mother was found dead. They think he shot her first.
Like every other similar event, this is tragic beyond my ability to even comprehend it. It's time to very seriously and earnestly address WHY this keeps happening. The answer is probably complicated...
I wish you were right on this Greg, but my opinion is that it's a part of our complicated modern society that will be extremely difficult to unravel, nonetheless resolve. It funny (in a non-humorous way) how any talk like this has completely dropped out of the discussion I'm aware of here in Colorado only a few months after our shooting.
On NBC news an FBI person just said that on average there are 20 mass shooting a year in the US and that is a 20 year average. Yes I know guns don't kill people do. If there were fewer guns in the hands of nuts there would fewer mass killings.
There are a lot of difficult questions to try to find answers to. If I had any I'd gladly share them. By now we pretty much know how the gun debate will go down (on these forums, that is). Both sides have valid points and passionate reasons for defending their POV. I'm sure we will engage in the debate again and that's ok.
I've only really been touched by this kind of violence, from a gun or otherwise, one time. One of our dearest friends shot and killed his wife and then himself this September. I do not know what the outcome would have been had he not had a gun in the house and never will. My best, and most honest, guess is that they would both be alive if he hadn't. What I do know for sure is that he was in pain, physical and emotional. We know the pain was deep enough and acute enough to drive him to do something none of us believed would ever be possible. I'm no shrink, but it makes a little sense to think many of these shooters are also experiencing something like that. If that's true then we need to become a proactive society. We need to figure out what are (at least) the most common causes of that kind of emotional distress. We need to let people know it is ok to feel hurt and be willing to help them. We need other people to be educated regarding warning signs to look for in people close to them. And yes, we need to figure out a reasonable way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who will use them to harm others. I just don't see any way that anything short of a holistic approach will ever help us solve our problem.
Originally posted by Feein05.
If there were fewer guns in the hands of nuts there would fewer mass killings.I don't buy this nonsense of "fewer guns in the hands of nuts". IMO, those words are far too overused by those in favour of free gun laws. It's a decorative dressing, a fancy tablecloth (if you will) to cover an ugly table (plain and simple), a way in which to downplay the severity of what is happening today, in the US, regarding gun related crimes.
mamalatte
12-14-12, 2:59pm
I literally felt sick when I saw the headline--what is the world coming to???
All the violence constantly seen in media has got to be a factor in creating the situation where a mass shooting is even something that occurs to people to do. Now that I don't have a TV anymore, when I do occasionally watch, I am so much more affected (disturbed) by the violent and gruesome images. I also can't believe some of the realistic killing/violence video games that are out there! Think about all the people spending lots of time each day simulating robbing and killing others, crashing them in cars, etc. Even the "educational" games okay for kids to play at school or the library often involve killing or destroying something.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 3:00pm
What I do know for sure is that he was in pain, physical and emotional. We know the pain was deep enough and acute enough to drive him to do something none of us believed would ever be possible. I'm no shrink, but it makes a little sense to think many of these shooters are also experiencing something like that.
I understand suicide, there are times I've wished to, well not actually do the deed, but more wishing: I wish my car was rear-ended and the pain would just be all over with, without me having to take any action. I don't think I will ever emotionally understand pre-meditated murder.
If that's true then we need to become a proactive society. We need to figure out what are (at least) the most common causes of that kind of emotional distress are. We need to let people know it is ok to feel hurt and be willing to help them. We need other people to be educated regarding warning signs to look for in people close to them. And yes, we need to figure out a reasonable way to keep weapons out of the hands of people who will use them to harm others. I just don't see any way that anything short of a holistic approach will ever help us solve our problem.
True we are generally not very scientific about it, everyone blames their favorite whipping boy. Including me? Well yea, look the overall cultural tenor is: I don't think we are even kinda sorta a society that really values human life. And no I'm not talking the abortion issue, that is what it is, but I mean first and foremost and primarily already born fully formed human life. I can't pretend our society really values it. And I'm not idealizing some other society, just saying what is as plain as day to me. And that's the overall background against which all is played, but why killers lose it in the way they do when the rest of us even living in this same society don't and can't even fathom such, I don't know. Plus in addition to that it is ALSO a *VIOLENT* society, in every way, shape, and form.
It's not simply a 2nd Ammendment issue. How about we just stop the violence. Period.
1078
Yes, yes, by all means let's toss out a platitude and move on. At least it sounds good, and pretty much absolves us of any real effort, or responsibility to curb gun violence.
Originally posted by Mamalatte.
I literally felt sick when I saw the headlineMe, too, but it never lasts long anymore (with me). It's become all too common, and so, I've become quite desensitized to it. Sad but true.
The violence will never stop, ESPECIALLY, when a failed amendment affords it's citizens the right to possess army tanks, missiles, bombs, grenades, machine guns, restricted weaponry, and on and on it goes...
IMO, the second amendment, should afford it's citizens with ONLY the right to bare nothing more than a simple rifle/pistol.
Really, this latest gun-spree is nothing. Copycats are watching (intently) right now, and they're learning, and as time goes on, crimes like this will become more and more sinister and heinous, with higher and higher death tolls.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 3:15pm
Now that I don't have a TV anymore, when I do occasionally watch, I am so much more affected (disturbed) by the violent and gruesome images.
OT: as this is not a comment on how much is due to violence in the media (because with all the wars going on there's plenty of real sanctioned violence about enough to complain about), but I actually can't look at violence in the media either, I turn away, cover my eyes, I can't look at it. And when I ocassionally watch action type things, I get way overloaded with FEAR. I feel powerless and overwhelmed by life, existentially overwhelmed almost, like life itself is suddenly too much. Everything is scary and horrendous. And no that is not how I am most of the time Yea, can't tolerate :)
SteveinMN
12-14-12, 3:19pm
Yes, yes, by all means let's toss out a platitude and move on. At least it sounds good, and pretty much absolves us of any real effort, or responsibility to curb gun violence.
I found out about this event when it was being covered by international news I was watching on cable. Saddening. Very saddening.
But (and this may well surprise some people, this coming from me) I don't see this as an issue of gun violence. If, somehow, guns were completely unavailable to the shooter (and, from all accounts I've seen so far, he was old enough and qualified enough to purchase the guns), he could have created an explosive device or released poison in the building. Much as I believe that we can and should put some structure around gun purchase and ownership without hollowing out the Second Amendment, the main matter here is that the shooter felt this was an action he had to take. That he felt that way is the real issue, IMHO, not the vector of the violence.
[EDIT]I also wonder how much good the wall-to-wall TV coverage does in cases like this. Thankfully, this is still an incredibly rare event considering the millions of school kids and teachers who go to school every day. I am aware that it is a big news event, as the second-largest school massacre in American history. But are we really served by the endless tape loops showing scared and horrified children and adults and the conjecture and hearsay needed just to fill time?
SHAME ON the US government for sitting back and batting a blind-eye to all the violence.
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-12, 3:25pm
SHAME ON the US government for sitting back and batting a blind-eye to all the violence.+1 Rob
SteveinMN. IMO, your applying a fancy decorative wrap to it. Denial, it's a mighty and powerful thing.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 3:32pm
SHAME ON the US government for sitting back and batting a blind-eye to all the violence.
oh for goodness sake, *they* have a *murder program*. They are also involved in committing several wars. It's the U.S. murder state afterall. Batting a blind-eye to violence would be an improvement compared to you know committing it.
My guess is that prescribed psychotropic drugs are somewhere in the mix, along with all the previously mentioned elements. and the common disaffection of adolescents and young adults.
San Onofre Guy
12-14-12, 3:36pm
You don't see many mass knifings. I wonder how many of the parents of the dead children are proponents of guns. Are they still? As far as the nuts that say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", well these mass shootings don't happen very often in other countries where gun ownership isn't promoted.
Not just promoted, San Onofre Guy, but allowed to run amuck!
We're animals (genetically by nature), so there will always be violence among us, but the frequency of such events happening (continually) in the US, staggering.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 3:43pm
and the common disaffection of adolescents and young adults.
I never felt more out of control of my emotions, and my own violent and rage tendencies in my life than in those years. Hormones, and not fully developed brain, and immense stress of adolescence CRAZY. And I'm not even a male who are overwhelmingly statistically those who commit such crimes, adolescent females are, no matter how crazy inside, usually a pretty non-violent bunch afterall.
Way to go NRA! 27 more people that according to you guns didn't kill. ( Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people.)
Back in the dark ages when I was growing up (1950's) the NRA was for people who went deer hunting. What progress we have made.
Somebody made those guns and somebody sold them and IMHO, they, the NRA, and their puppets in Congress have as much of the children's blood on their hands as the deranged man who shot them.
Originally posted by Florence.
the NRA, and their puppets in Congress have as much of the children's blood on their hands as the deranged man who shot them.Well said! I couldn't agree more!
I too am speechless. We were in the middle of our Christmas party when someone checked their phone and saw the news. Driving home, all I could think about was that something is very wrong with our culture when our children, our future are so easily assasinated. The sad truth is that there are other hate-filled individuals watching out there with cold hearts and a wish to do the same - at the grocery store, at church - there is no safe haven for any of us anymore. I would put more of a finger on violence in the media and our endless wars that we have all grown to think of as normal. An unrelenting stream of it and an unbalanced person loses any other framework than using violence to feel powerful - if even for one horrible moment.
Guns + mental illness. Very powerful, very pertinent article by a MHP.
http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/guns-and-mental-illness-kill-people/
On NBC news an FBI person just said that on average there are 20 mass shooting a year in the US and that is a 20 year average. Yes I know guns don't kill people do. If there were fewer guns in the hands of nuts there would fewer mass killings.
I often wonder if de-institutionalizing the mentally ill has anything to do with the increase in all kinds of viollence (other then drug violence which is rampant). I know in Calif - and maybe other states - that 20 or 30 years ago they closed down all sorts of mental health facilities and just released many mentally ill people into the streets without any support or help except from their families. Most were people who could function well, even be employed and live a "normal" life as long as they were medicated and had counselling, but who could became very delusional and violent when they were not. And because you can not now force someone to take medication or get help - and there are few places to get that help even if they wanted it - you have the potential for people to go off their meds and become dangerous. While I didn't like the idea of locking up mentally ill people to make sure they took their meds, I also feel that just releasing them without support can lead to many more violent acts. I volunteer at my VA hospitals homeless Vet program and I deal with some very delusional people who have stopped taking their meds - and there is nothing that can be done about it as long as they don't do anything harmful to themselves or others...at that moment. But they are timebombs for sure. Link below to a Frontline article on de-institutionalization of the mentally ill.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/...
Drunk drivers kill people, and we don't say "alcohol doesn't kill" or "cars don't kill" as an inane defense against regulating both alcohol consumption & driving. We regulate both, because it's the lethal combination that is what kills.
A poem by my friend & renowned Two-Spirit poet, Qwo-Li Driskill
After the Shootings
Quanneapague, December 14, 2012
The names of children
sharp needles of loss
we use to suture
the gash of memory
that rises
from Potatuck land
the story bleeds
onto us
shouts rapid fire
crumples behind desks
a story
with a trigger
and not enough time
to hide
a story
we didn't want to hear
but can recite by heart
America
I truly am simple, and not very smart, but even I know that there are not any easy answers or solutions to these kinds of events. The views held on this issue are of the kind in which it is unlikely that any position or belief or stance would be influenced or changed, no matter how reasonable the opposing argument. The dialogue is going to get lost in details that have little connection to the larger issues. Just like so many other things. It is very distressing to be about one's life, just trying to do what is best or for the greater good...whatever that might be...and to live in a world where it seems that doing one's best is ineffective, no matter how we try or how well-intentioned we might be.
I cannot bear knowing that at nearly thirty families are suffering so, and that no matter what we do or do not do that these events can be prevented. There will always be suffering, I acknowledge that although I cannot accept it, but it seems impossible that we, individually and as a community or even the world community are unable to do something to address any of this. You know, perhaps it is situated on my own unpleasant and dangerous life this year that makes this so difficult. Just feeling a little disheartened and vulnerable.
Someone mentioned that mass knifings do not happen often, or something like that, I cannot find the post. Just that happened today in Beijing.
I read the article in the LATimes today. Maybe I can find it again.
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-man-slashes-22-children-near-china-school-20121214,0,6383015.story
China has strict gun control laws, so knives are the weapon of choice in violent crimes.
Someone mentioned that mass knifings do not happen often, or something like that, I cannot find the post. Just that happened today in Beijing.
Guns, knives, bags of fertilizer, cars, a gas can and a match, Ninja swords, propane cylinders... If your child were dead tonight would you be more inclined to ask "how" or "why"? I still think we need to ask why.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/326213/man-stabs-22-children-at-china-primary-school
No one died.
Resource for parents:
http://www.babble.com/babble-voices/something-fierce-katherine-stone/2012/12/14/5-top-resources-for-talking-to-your-kids-about-school-shootings/?cmp=SMC%7Cbbl%7Csoc%7CFB%7CMain%7CInHouse%7C12141 2%7CLink%7C%7CfamE%7CSocial%7C%7C&utm_campaign=babbleeditors&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=SMC%7Cbbl%7Csoc%7CFB%7CMain%7CInHouse%7C1 21412%7CLink%7C%7CfamE%7CSocial
Conservatives don't want to throw a whole lot of money @ fixing social ills. They're more like "let the private sector fix it." If this is the case, it would be a whole lot cheaper to just outlaw assault weapons and the 45 (or is it 450?) round clips that are readily available for everyone who isn't an ex-con to buy than to try and fix all the crazy people in the country or actually change our culture so it no longer salivates at the prospect of violence.
Problem is the arms manufacturers want a bigger market than just the US military to sell these weapons to and they're lobbying guarantee their market stays as big as possible. Or course the NRA is constantly funneling money to make sure NOTHING is done to rectify this problem of easy access to weapons that didn't even exist 20 years ago, much less 230 years ago.
My guess is that most card-carrying NRA members would be happy to have limits on general population having access to this weaponry.
Rob: I don't agree. I don't see that there's a legitimate reason for conservatives to blame liberals for this mess.
Yes, they have lots of knife wielding stabbers in China. But it's a hell of a lot harder to stab someone to death than to kill them by shooting them through the head.
This guy was nuts. It's not relevant whether or not he was "evil." But he was crazy. There will always be crazy people.
Redfox: I agree. That's such a stupid lame-@ss line "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Probably made up by someone in marketing @ the NRA. Why should I believe that line just because it's clever-sounding and concise?
Mrs. M--currently in the US, there is NO appetite on either side for wasting precious political energy trying to change gun laws. It is a dead-end issue. I predict this won't even inspire a serious discussion of anti-gun legislation, much less result in significant change. I hope I'm wrong.
sweetana3
12-14-12, 5:22pm
I worked with a very nice woman who had a son with schizophrenia. He was an adult and she had no control over him. She knew it was only a matter of time but as his mother hoped he would take his medicine and survive.
He got guns, heard voices, and ended up shooting at a tranformer and then the police. It is only thru providence that no one was killed. He is now in jail. She tried for 20 years to help him but there was nothing else she could do.
This is the reason to find out the "why" and see what can be done. But in our free society, there is less and less we can do. The most important thing at this time is for the authorities to interview his brother (who appears to be the only surviving relative?) to see what he knows about the history of his brother.
It's going to come down to gun control, plain and simple. Mail order ammo, semi-auto assault rifles, extended clips, weapon registration, and background checks. Our Colorado governor announced his intentions, just hours before this incident, that it is time to address gun control issues. People had thought he had decided to let the issue go after our shootings, but he didn't. If President Obama's speech today was any indication, he is going to take up the issue of gun control. The often mis-informed media is all over it.
Why is definitely an important question, but on a national scale it is a question it could take years to answer and longer to fix.
After our Colorado shootings there was a 26+ page debate here over Gun control. It was a decent education for many of us including me. But the reality as I see it is that there will be changes in our gun laws.
SteveinMN
12-14-12, 5:34pm
SteveinMN. IMO, your applying a fancy decorative wrap to it. Denial, it's a mighty and powerful thing.
Mrs-M, I honestly do not believe guns are the key issue here. As Gregg points out, someone really bent on wreaking havoc could do so with a load of fertilizer and a TracFone, items which any one of us could purchase without ever getting a second glance. Or the perpetrator could have blown himself up in the building and taken kids and adults with him. Or committed arson. Or stolen the guns from a legitimate owner. Look at the massacre in Norway last year. There are few countries with tighter gun restrictions than Norway, yet something similar still happened there.
As I mentioned in my post, I do believe that we can and should put limits on gun purchases and ownership. I don't believe the Second Amendment should be (mis)used as an excuse for a free-for-all of the acquisition and use of firearms. There are lots of rights which come with responsibilities and limitations. Guns certainly should be one of them.
But we need to look at the root issue. In this case, it's someone who obviously was disturbed and perhaps even documentably mentally ill. Should there be restrictions on people who are documentably mentally ill from buying guns? I think so. But that does not preclude such people from buying fertilizer. Or TracFones. Or a couple of pounds of nails. Or matches.
IMHO, the issue is how we have failed to respond to people who display signs of illness or extraordinary stress. Even for those people who do have health insurance, mental-health coverage is nowhere near as comprehensive as medical/surgical coverage. Many people with major-medical health insurance go completely without mental-health coverage. And then there's the stigma of mental-health issues. And 30 years of closing mental-health clinics and institutions and "mainstreaming" pretty much everyone but the criminally insane. We are sowing the harvest of crops we treated poorly.
I'm guessing once they investigate this guy -- and the Clackamas, OR, killer and the attacker in Beijing, they will see untreated signs that pushed him in the direction he chose. And we're all going to say what a shame it was that the signs were present and nothing was done. And then we're going to go on ignoring the need to somehow make sure people who need help get it.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uucollective/2012/12/guns-dont-kill-people/
Again, I say a big problem is that our individual rights in this country always trump the rights/welfare of the whole.
This country is too big and complicated to catch all the potential murderers before they happen. We're out of control. Our values are askew. And nobody really wants to give up anything, in order for this to maybe not happen again.
I'm just sick. This will haunt me for a long time.
It's going to come down to gun control, plain and simple. Mail order ammo, semi-auto assault rifles, extended clips, weapon registration, and background checks. Our Colorado governor announced his intentions, just hours before this incident, that it is time to address gun control issues. People had thought he had decided to let the issue go after our shootings, but he didn't. If President Obama's speech today was any indication, he is going to take up the issue of gun control. The often mis-informed media is all over it.
Why is definitely an important question, but on a national scale it is a question it could take years to answer and longer to fix.
After our Colorado shootings there was a 26+ page debate here over Gun control. It was a decent education for many of us including me. But the reality as I see it is that there will be changes in our gun laws.
But alot of states (calif for instance) have very strict gun control laws already in place as we discussed in that last gun debate and yet those who still wish to do harm, do. And it's usually not an automatic weapon with an extended magazine - it could be a rifle or shotgun or legally purchased handgun that many people in this country and others have for hunting or home protection. While I agree that full or semi-auto assualt weapons with extended magazine shouldn't be open to purchase by ordinary citizens, a hunting rifle or pump shotgun can cause as much, and maybe more, harm. While Conneticutt doesn't have as strict of law as Calif, here is Conn. gun laws in a nutshell:
Code Section 29-33, 35; 53a-211, et seq.; 29-37a
Illegal Arms Sawed-off shotgun with barrel less than 18 inches or overall length of less than 26 inches; silencer; pistol/revolver without permit outside house or business
Waiting Period 2 weeks from mailing of written application
Who May Not Own 1. Minors (pistol/revolver); 2. Conviction of felony; 3. Illegal or unlawful alien (pistol/revolver); 4. Confined in a psychiatric hospital within preceding twelve months
Law Prohibiting Firearms On or Near School Grounds Felony. 53a-217b
I can't go up to Wal-mart today and buy 500 bags of fertilizer and put a lighter to it and expect it to do anything. It involves a lot of work, investment of money, time and research to pull a Timothy McVeigh.
But I could walk go to Wal-Mart this hour and with my clean police record buy as many guns and as much ammo as I want and possibly kill 50 people within the same hour.
Nobody is calling to limit anyone's access to fertilizer. We can aspire to having the greenest lawns on the block without fear of loss of access to nitrogen.
Big, big difference. Guns do not equal fertilizer and 45 round clips for assault weapons do not equal handguns.
Antonin Scalia defined this argument the other day. Reduction to the absurd.
I can't go up to Wal-mart today and buy 500 bags of fertilizer and put a lighter to it and expect it to do anything. It involves a lot of work, investment of money, time and research to pull a Timothy McVeigh.
But I could walk go to Wal-Mart this hour and with my clean police record buy as many guns and as much ammo as I want and possibly kill 50 people within the same hour.
Nobody is calling to limit anyone's access to fertilizer. We can aspire to having the greenest lawns on the block without fear of loss of access to nitrogen.
Big, big difference. Guns do not equal fertilizer and 45 round clips for assault weapons do not equal handguns.
Antonin Scalia defined this argument the other day. Reduction to the absurd.
Well you might not be able to purchase a bunch of handguns in one day, but Virginia gun laws ARE one of the least restrictive of all the states. Most states aren't as loose. So besides a criminal background check there are few other things for Virginia:
"Though no permit is necessary to purchase firearms in the state of Virginia, those with the appropriate handgun license may purchase more than one handgun within a month's time. Virginia limits handgun purchases by anyone not licensed as a gun dealer to one per 30-day period (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(P)). Prospective purchasers who complete an “enhanced background check” and a special State Police application and meet other requirements may make a one-time purchase above the limit
Those who do not have a handgun license must wait a period of thirty days before purchasing another handgun. There are restrictions regarding the possession and sale of a firearm to certain individuals that are deemed unqualified by state law. This includes any person with felony charge convictions, any person under the age of 29 that was convicted of charge as a minor 14 years or older that if charged as an adult, would constitute a felony, and any person acquitted of crime by reason of insanity may not possess, purchase, or transport a firearm. An interesting restriction unique to Virginia is the restriction of semi-automatic rifles with a folding stock with the capability of holding more than 12 rounds. It is illegal to sell, transport, or possess such a shotgun. Any person that is considered an illegal alien is also prohibited to possess, buy, or transport a firearm.
The carrying of a concealed weapon is allowed only by a concealed handgun permit. The application must be submitted in writing to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the appropriate county. The person must be at least 21 years of age, and be legally deemed as able to possess a firearm to be eligible."
Guns, knives, bags of fertilizer, cars, a gas can and a match, Ninja swords, propane cylinders... If your child were dead tonight would you be more inclined to ask "how" or "why"? I still think we need to ask why.
I am sorry. I do not know what this means in relation to what I wrote. I think that asking and understanding why such things happen is important. Is that what you meant?
sweetana3
12-14-12, 6:43pm
We dont even know if these were his handguns or rifle or owned by his parents. One rumor is that the guns were registered to his mother. Thus talking about restrictions due to mental illness are useless.
Best to wait a bit to find out the accurate facts.
I am a firm believer in gun control ala UK however, it is really not helpful to argue these issues in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
But alot of states (calif for instance) have very strict gun control laws already in place as we discussed in that last gun debate and yet those who still wish to do harm, do. And it's usually not an automatic weapon with an extended magazine - it could be a rifle or shotgun or legally purchased handgun that many people in this country and others have for hunting or home protection. While I agree that full or semi-auto assualt weapons with extended magazine shouldn't be open to purchase by ordinary citizens, a hunting rifle or pump shotgun can cause as much, and maybe more, harm. While Conneticutt doesn't have as strict of law as Calif, here is Conn. gun laws in a nutshell...
With due respect, I was not especially expressing opinion. I pretty much aired as much opinion and hot air that I had in the previous round. I'm just saying what I think is a realistic expectation. Gun control is the easiest way for politicians to react to things like this and this most recent issue I think will push them to the brink. I seriously doubt there will be any big push to explore sociological cause and effect. It's too touchy-feely for politics.
I support certain types of gun control. I think even if it just saves one or a hand full of lives it's worth it, and much or most of it is really not a lot of skin off the common gun owners rights.
goldensmom
12-14-12, 7:34pm
Tragedies such as this always remind me of stories I heard about the Bath (Michigan) School Disaster of 1927 where 38 elementary school children, 2 teachers and 4 other adults died and 58 were injured. Prior to the school killings, the perpetrator killed his wife then subsequently killed himself. My uncle was in the vicinity at the time of the incident and transported injured persons to the hospitals in his car because there were not enough ambulances or emergency vehicles. This mass murder was the result of homemade bombs.
domestic goddess
12-14-12, 7:37pm
The children who died in this senseless shooting are now removed from the horror of the whole thing. But their parents and siblings and the other children and staff in the school will have to live with this for the rest of their lives. You send your children to school, thinking they will be safe, but that is not an assumption anyone can make anymore. I don't understand the rage someone must feel to do such a thing. Or the feeling of hopelessness. As a society, we have really gone off course.
The NRA is now saying if just one of those children was packing heat he/she could have prevented this tragedy. Just kidding. The blood is flowing on the shoes of the NRA.
We dont even know if these were his handguns or rifle or owned by his parents. One rumor is that the guns were registered to his mother. Thus talking about restrictions due to mental illness are useless.
You are right if we decide as a nation that we're going to frame our gun control discussion within the limits of this case only. I think we should discuss gun control in terms of what has happened over the course of at least the past 2 decades and probably go back a lot longer.
Yossarian
12-14-12, 8:02pm
And it's usually not an automatic weapon with an extended magazine
The facts are fluid but as it stands at 8:00 it looks like the killing was done with two very average handguns that were legally owned by the mother. It would have been illegal for the shooter to possess them but those laws did not stop this horrible crime.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-12, 8:04pm
I think we should discuss gun control in terms of what has happened over the course of at least the past 2 decades and probably go back a lot longer
Has the rate of homicide or gun homicide gone up in the last few decades? Yea I think you are going to have to go back further, there were some really bad decades back there when some of us were kids (really those were the peaks for violent crime). It could be that homicide has shifted into weird mass murder cases, but I hardly think if so that's any worse than a general high homicide rate.
I have to wonder why we have so many apparently brain-damaged children these days. Even given that there are more of us, we seem to have numbers of troubled/impaired/marginally functional/medicated young people that are historically unprecedented.
sweetana3
12-14-12, 8:31pm
They are perhaps more identified as such since they stand out more in our fast paced and "in your face" social life where there is so much more connectivity. Even in the 50s, life was slower and simpler and there were places for such people to live their lives. Now the media and society puts a premium on success and fitting in.
I am not sure we can say with any certainty that there were more or less troubled or impaired people. Life was however slower and simpler when I was young.
The fact that this young person killed his own mother face to face is enough to be really troubling and to look at the family dynamics. Such anger......
SteveinMN
12-14-12, 8:41pm
I can't go up to Wal-mart today and buy 500 bags of fertilizer and put a lighter to it and expect it to do anything. It involves a lot of work, investment of money, time and research to pull a Timothy McVeigh.
Okay, I'll admit to not being anywhere near an expert in how to do this. But I don't think it takes 500 bags of fertilizer. Five or six might do. Maybe not even that many. Remember that Atlanta Olympics bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing)? That wasn't much of a device at all -- except for all the pointy metal inside. Richard Reid's shoe bomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid) didn't take 500 bags of fertilizer, either. And converting can't be that hard. McVeigh learned how. People all over Iraq and Afghanistan learned how. There was a time people actually could get through airport security with manicure scissors and baby formula, too. There are lots of methods and all I'm saying is that cutting off the obvious path doesn't solve the problem.
Big, big difference. Guns do not equal fertilizer and 45 round clips for assault weapons do not equal handguns.
This crime apparently was perpetuated with two handguns. Heck, I don't even want to get in front of a Red Ryder BB gun. Short of banning gun ownership in the U.S. (which will never happen in our lifetimes), this possibility exists. I'm not saying 'don't control guns'. I'm saying that if it isn't guns, it will be something else. What we should be paying at least some attention to is why people feel driven to do things this extreme.
Well you might not be able to purchase a bunch of handguns in one day, but Virginia gun laws ARE one of the least restrictive of all the states. Most states aren't as loose. So besides a criminal background check there are few other things for Virginia:
"Though no permit is necessary to purchase firearms in the state of Virginia, those with the appropriate handgun license may purchase more than one handgun within a month's time. Virginia limits handgun purchases by anyone not licensed as a gun dealer to one per 30-day period (Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-308.2:2(P)). Prospective purchasers who complete an “enhanced background check” and a special State Police application and meet other requirements may make a one-time purchase above the limit
Those who do not have a handgun license must wait a period of thirty days before purchasing another handgun. There are restrictions regarding the possession and sale of a firearm to certain individuals that are deemed unqualified by state law. This includes any person with felony charge convictions, any person under the age of 29 that was convicted of charge as a minor 14 years or older that if charged as an adult, would constitute a felony, and any person acquitted of crime by reason of insanity may not possess, purchase, or transport a firearm. An interesting restriction unique to Virginia is the restriction of semi-automatic rifles with a folding stock with the capability of holding more than 12 rounds. It is illegal to sell, transport, or possess such a shotgun. Any person that is considered an illegal alien is also prohibited to possess, buy, or transport a firearm.
The carrying of a concealed weapon is allowed only by a concealed handgun permit. The application must be submitted in writing to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the appropriate county. The person must be at least 21 years of age, and be legally deemed as able to possess a firearm to be eligible."
Yeah this, or, no restrictions if you buy it in a 'private' sale. Me to you has no restrictions.
The NRA is now saying if just one of those children was packing heat he/she could have prevented this tragedy. Just kidding. The blood is flowing on the shoes of the NRA.
I know you are joking, but, I was just thinking today, how long it will be before some idiot says, seriously, if only there were MORE guns on the scene!
Steve: Are you saying that because Richard Reid can put a plastic explosive in his shoe or in his underpants or because Timothy McVeigh made a bomb out of fertilizer that we shouldn't do ANYTHING to try and reduce the amount of gun violence?
You're almost right. Without guns, it could be something else. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of nuts out there who will go in with a Ninja sword (as someone else mentioned) and start slaughtering (or do I mean hacking.) But with a Ninja sword it would take a lot of hacking and stabbing and a lot of time and energy to kill 28 people.
I do think some people will be dissuaded if it's impossible to get the weapons that have so frequently been at the center of these episodes in the past. My point is that it's a lot easier and faster to do the damage with automatic weapons that should be restricted to military use. But nothing is going to completely solve this problem, even providing therapy to the entire American public.
It sounds as if you think that no restrictions should be implemented to limit citizen's access any guns or any ammo at all because if we can't eliminate the problem completely we shouldn't try to even curb the most egregious and violent acts that result in bloodbaths like what happened today. Is this really how you feel?
I am not suggesting we repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Apathetic: You're right, we should understand what exactly is causing all these violent impulses that have become much easier to act out on with such easy access to semi-automatic weapons. But in the meantime, if arming ourselves is really helping, we are the most heavily armed citizenry in the history of the planet. We should have no gun violence in this country. Instead, we're the most prone to it.
A single shot from a gun that summer I was about 13 changed my outlook on life and continues to today. On a Girl Scout cycling trip from a lake back to camp while stopped at a stop sign waiting for the rest of the girls to catch up, the girl behind me was hit just below the knee. I looked to where the shot came from, a house on the hill up the road, and it's front door was closing.
The rest of the girls all said it was a firework from a car driving up towards the stop sign at the time. But I knew it wasn't. I had been hunting with my father way too many times and knew it wasn't. When the counselors finally admitted it was a gunshot they said it was a BB gun. I knew it wasn't because I OWNED a BB gun and there was no way a BB gun could reach us from the house where I knew the shot came from. The cops realized I knew what I was talking about and I think they did get the person responsible. But I know to this day that the guy was probably aiming at me as I was first in line, a sitting duck waiting at the stop sign, and the only thing that saved me, and the others, is that he overestimated his abilities to hit a target, any target at that distance.
Yet I also grew up on the other side of the gun; as an award-wining shot in both archery and bb gun at Y-camp and hunting with my father. We ate what we shot.
This debate is so very difficult for me personally because I have lived on both sides. I no longer own a gun, have no interest in them, support reasonable gun ownership, such as for food for hunting, personal safety from stalkers, etc, but find the NRA's tactics disgusting and disgraceful.
My heart goes out to the families who are hurt and destroyed by irresponsible gun ownership. I am hoping a solution can be found to stop these kind of violent acts from happening.
Yossarian
12-14-12, 10:08pm
we shouldn't try to even curb the most egregious and violent acts that result in bloodbaths like what happened today.
......
if arming ourselves is really helping, we are the most heavily armed citizenry in the history of the planet.
What new laws do you suggest that would have prevented this (already illegal) tragedy?
Why do so many of the mass shootings occur in gun free zones?
freein05
12-14-12, 10:23pm
What new laws do you suggest that would have prevented this (already illegal) tragedy?
Why do so many of the mass shootings occur in gun free zones?
Because people can buy guns with little effort as said on some news show today it is easier to buy a gun in many states than it is to rent a car. Gun control needs to be done at the federal level. As for gun free zones that is a ridiculous comment. There are no armed guards at schools or other gun free zones enforcing gun free zones laws.
freein05
12-14-12, 10:31pm
I was kidding but some gun nut are saying all teachers should be armed.
"Steve Dulan, a board member for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners who is supporting a state bill that would allow concealed weapons in schools and other gun-free zones, said Friday that having armed teachers inside Sandy Hook Elementary School would have, "if not prevented, then perhaps minimized," the tragedy" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-shooting-armed-teachers-gun-advocate_n_2304654.html
How dumb can people be?
Yossarian
12-14-12, 10:32pm
As for gun free zones that is a ridiculous comment. There are no armed guards at schools or other gun free zones enforcing gun free zones laws.
Yes, exactly. They do nothing to keep bad guys out, no armed guards as you say. It only impacts the victims.
Yossarian
12-14-12, 10:43pm
I was kidding but some gun nut are saying all teachers should be armed.
"Steve Dulan, a board member for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners who is supporting a state bill that would allow concealed weapons in schools and other gun-free zones, said Friday that having armed teachers inside Sandy Hook Elementary School would have, "if not prevented, then perhaps minimized," the tragedy" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-shooting-armed-teachers-gun-advocate_n_2304654.html
How dumb can people be?
As dumb as the Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/what-can-we-do-to-stop-massacres/266300/?google_editors_picks=true
What Can We Do to Stop Massacres?
DEC 14 2012, 2:59 PM ET 356 (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/what-can-we-do-to-stop-massacres/266300/?google_editors_picks=true#disqus_thread)The massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, has caused many people, including people at the White House, to say that this is not the day to talk about gun policy. This day is obviously for mourning the dead, but I don't understand why we shouldn't talk about the conditions that lead to these sorts of shootings. I wrote about this issue in the current issue of The Atlantic (you can read the story here (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/)), and I want to quickly make a few points drawn from that longer article.
...
4) People should have the ability to defend themselves. Mass shootings take many lives in part because no one is firing back at the shooters. The shooters in recent massacres have had many minutes to complete their evil work, while their victims cower under desks or in closets. One response to the tragic reality that we are a gun-saturated country is to understand that law-abiding, well-trained, non-criminal, wholly sane citizens who are screened by the government have a role to play in their own self-defense, and in the defense of others (read The Atlantic article to see how one armed school administrator stopped a mass shooting in Pearl Mississippi). I don't know anything more than anyone else about the shooting in Connecticut at the moment, but it seems fairly obvious that there was no one at or near the school who could have tried to fight back.
I was kidding but some gun nut are saying all teachers should be armed.
"Steve Dulan, a board member for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners who is supporting a state bill that would allow concealed weapons in schools and other gun-free zones, said Friday that having armed teachers inside Sandy Hook Elementary School would have, "if not prevented, then perhaps minimized," the tragedy" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/connecticut-shooting-armed-teachers-gun-advocate_n_2304654.html
How dumb can people be?
I think it's wishful thinking. Everyone wants these tragedies to stop... That is our common ground.
Since we've gotten to the argument, I've been reading some amazing papers today.
First, my personal feelings. I'm emotionally shut down on it. I just completely shut off -- largely because my friends live in the next town over, and besides which, friends of theirs -- whom we met a handful of times and I helped with some fertility stuff -- have a kid in that school. I completely shut down until we -- thankfully -- got news that their kiddo is A-Ok, and thank god for it because I don't know how I would have coped. As it is, it just seems tragic, but abstract. It was strikingly close to NOT being abstract. I had the same reaction to Aurora, because my friends live there and work in a late-night coffee shop right around the corner from the theater. Thankfully, they were safe, and being good folks, they did some AMAZING stuff in their community over the nexxt couple of days followed that I'm seriously proud of them. And, our own ZoeGirl, of course, being so close by.
Second, everyone starts to jump on the gun control wagon, and so I started to research -- because waiting for a call to make sure a baby is ok is a long one to wait for. Here are some awesome things that I found:
Gun Control doesn't Decrease Gun Violence (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)
In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluationfrom a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 governmentpublications, and some original empirical research. It failed toidentify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, sui‐cide, or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐extant studies.16
Japanese Have No Gun Violence (virtually) but Do have Regular Search and Seizures (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html).
'Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own.[37] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn37) The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure that no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.[38] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn38)The close surveillance of gun owners and householders comports with the police tradition of keeping close tabs on many private activities.[39] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn39) For example, the nation's official year-end police report includes statistics like 'Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct'. The police recorded 9,402 such incidents in 1985, and determined that 37.4 per cent of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had sex 'voluntarily'. The two leading reasons for having sex voluntarily were 'out of curiosity' for 19.6 per cent, and 'liked particular boy', for 18.1 per cent.[40] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn40) The fact that police keep records on sex is simply a reflection of their keeping an eye on everything, including guns. Every person is the subject of a police dossier.[41] (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn41)Almost everyone accepts the paradigm that the police should be respected. Because the police are so esteemed, the Japanese people co-operate with their police more than Americans do. Co-operation with the police also extends to obeying the laws which almost everyone believes in. The Japanese people, and even the large majority of Japanese criminals, voluntarily obey the gun controls.
So what perpetuates this sort of violence? Obviously, it's not guns -- so it's gotta be something else.
Part of it is probably cultural. So we can talk about how to fix that. But here's an interesting video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4) that posits that the 24-news cycle that glamorizes the event in some ways is part of the culprit. In fact, apparently a forensic psychiatrist agrees (he's quoted in the video).
In the end, I'm super sad for these families and thankful that I do live in a country where gun violence is relatively rare (though ownership is not, no matter how many kiwis are telling me that their controls are "much more strict" than the US -- which is both true and false really -- depends upon the weapon).
And, I enjoyed a day on the beach with my son, and will continue to hold him close, and hold those families in my thoughts and prayers.
SteveinMN
12-15-12, 12:32am
Steve: Are you saying that because Richard Reid can put a plastic explosive in his shoe or in his underpants or because Timothy McVeigh made a bomb out of fertilizer that we shouldn't do ANYTHING to try and reduce the amount of gun violence?
Not at all. And, frankly, having stated it clearly (I thought) in two separate posts, I'm starting to wonder if you're reading the entirety of posts (yeah, I know they're long).
Again, I do believe there should be restrictions on gun ownership and use. I cannot state that any more clearly than that.
However:
- I believe if someone is so imbalanced that they want to kill people, they will find a way to do so. Zoebird's post right above this one supports that argument.
- Given the presence of the Second Amendment in the Constitution and half a country full of people who will fight the effort very hard, I think attempts to severely limit access of the public to guns will fail. If you want a sneak peek, look at what happened to Prohibition. Sorry; it would be a worthwhile outcome of this carnage if this was the event that changed the tide, but after so many other massacres over so many years, I don't see it happening.
- Even societies in which gun violence is rare and guns are highly controlled (e.g., the Scandinavian countries, Japan) have suffered massacres at the hands of deranged people.
What I am suggesting is that, instead of reflexively asserting that the answer is restricting or removing access to guns, we put at least some of that energy into shoring up mental-health resources in this country so that people like Lanza and and James Holmes (and Wade Page and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and all the others) don't deteriorate from normal mental health into a state where the only reaction that makes sense to them is killing people on a large scale.
Interesting note: While Americans are standing at TSA checkpoints across the U.S., half their baggage in bins and their shoes in their hands, people at Tel Aviv Airport -- which you would think would have a terrible security problem given history and its location -- stand at those checkpoints like normal people. Like Americans used to. And while the U.S. has had any number of airline hijackings in the past decades and lost thousands of people to four airliners and two-and-a-half buildings demolished on September 11, there has not been a single hijacking or terrorist incident involving passengers leaving from Tel Aviv airport. Israeli security does not provide security theater in the form of limiting shampoo and nail files. They do actual investigative work to identify passengers likely to cause problems on airplanes. We have our track record in airplane violence. Israel has theirs. I'd rather fly out of Tel Aviv, personally.
I'm simply saying is that if we do not address the life situations that cause people like Lanza to consider mass destruction the way out, even removing guns from the scene completely won't make much difference. They'll find another way. Might it be slower? Or less likely to kill or maim in large numbers? Maybe. But I don't think any of the 25 families who are missing loved ones tonight care much if their loved one was one of 25 or 250 -- for them the loss is real and total.
Isn't it better to try to avoid the situation by helping those most likely to perpetrate?
Norway actually has less gun control than many US states, and is kinda like texas in a way. :) BUt, yeah, they have problems too.
Yeah. For me, the focus is on this. If gun control doesn't decrease gun violence (or violence in general), what can we do to actually get rid of violence?
That's the solution to this problem -- solving violence.
Why on earth did the shooter's mother have guns if she had an emotionally disturbed child in the house. A gun would be the last thing I would have.
I think technology has a lot to do with the increase in these kinds of mass shootings. So many young people are withdrawing from interacting on a personal level with other people because they have video games and movies, some on-line and some quite violent; social media like facebook where you can have hundreds of cyber friends, even if you don't have any real ones, etc. So many kids have grown up this way that I really think their brains just haven't developed the way they should, due to lack of real world interactions.
Also causing it is the breakdown of the family structure, and the lack of parental influence; it has been superseded by the media.
We have also lost a lot of our social fabric. So many people are just not involved in their communities any more.
One of the reasons, according to the link I gave above, is because of how these things are reported.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-12, 2:41am
The thing is also that there are already so many guns out there, that if strict gun control were to go into effect, it might mean guns become scarce in ...... several decades? Just because there are already so many guns out there just in the U.S., and many more people that will buy before whatever new laws go into effect, and that's not even pondering illegal importation or anything. They could call it the "war on guns" but I'm not sure it would be any more effective than the war on drugs, or terror or .....
What I am suggesting is that, instead of reflexively asserting that the answer is restricting or removing access to guns, we put at least some of that energy into shoring up mental-health resources in this country so that people like Lanza and and James Holmes (and Wade Page and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and all the others) don't deteriorate from normal mental health into a state where the only reaction that makes sense to them is killing people on a large scale.
Yea put some of that money, since it would cost money to implement. I imagine how much though depends on how extreme you get, just background checks don't likely cost much, but bans would (because they can't even seem to ban drugs, or illegal aliens entering, or etc. on the cheap - massive massive cost centers). So dozens of these bloated law enforcement agencies or an improved social safety net, which way? Mental health has the added benefit that it may ocassionally also be able to help those who would never become murderers in the first place but were say suicidal or homeless solely because of mental health issues etc..
The shooter is being reported as having Asperger's. No verification that I have seen. Though it's still considerd a psychiatric disorder, that is being challenged in the field.
I think that we need these folks to have mental illness, because we cannot fathom that someone without mental illness would do such a thing. It only makes sense that they were "out of their minds" you know?
It's our way of escaping from the reality of just blatant human cruelty.
goldensmom
12-15-12, 5:40am
I think that we need these folks to have mental illness, because we cannot fathom that someone without mental illness would do such a thing. It only makes sense that they were "out of their minds" you know?
It's our way of escaping from the reality of just blatant human cruelty.
I totally agree that human cruelty exists. I also think that mental deficiency is a ‘fact’ not a ‘need for justification’ is these situations because this type of behavior is way outside the bell curve of normal behavior and the vast, vast, vast majority of people do not commit such heinous acts.
Example, of the participants on this forum as a representative group of people in a microcosm of society, would any of us even think to commit a massacre such as this? I think not, I hope not, if so get help and quickly.
Well, it's a fact when it's been demonstrated to be a fact.
Redfox asserts that so far, the only "mental illness" the person is known to have is that of aspergers, which is questionable as to whether it is a "mental illness." What we don't know is if the person has severe depression or other mental disorders.
The thing that is really weird about some mass murderers (particularly the quiet kind who kill many people over years) is that their neighbors describe them as nice, quite, and "normal" people. Some of them hold decent jobs as well, and have "normal" lives in every way. And yet they do this very extreme act.
This also doesn't mean that the person doesn't have some kind of mental illness, but that could smply be criminality itself. I dont' think criminality is necessarily based on mental illness per se -- even though it is well outside the norm.
Also, one of my high school friends killed her mother in what appeared to be a meth-involved situation. I don't actually know all of the facts, and the reporting online is sketchy (i think it happened 5-10 years ago now). It was SO WEIRD to read about this girl with whom I went to high school, hung out, even went to her house. . . did this terrible thing to her own mother. It's very strange indeed -- and I have no idea what would have pushed her to that state. If it was meth, then goodness. . . wow. Right?
it makes it easier for me to understand it if it was meth. If it wasn't meth, I don't understand it. See?
sweetana3
12-15-12, 7:18am
I think some violence is due to suppressed rage and anyone can experience it but over the normal range of the bell shaped curve. We all know about those whose violence and rage is expressed outward and in front of others since we can "see" them. It is the quiet raging individuals that are invisible to society and surprise us when the violence breaks through. (Thrill killers are totally different.)
Sometimes it is suicide, sometimes murder or other acts against others. Here we seem to have the most extreme with domestic violence, stranger murder, and suicide in one long continuous act. This was rage on a scale ordinary people cannot fathom. It is almost a "notice me" situation with total irrationality.
Steve: Yes, I did read the entirety of your posts. Yes, they are long.
No, I never called for prohibition of guns. In fact, I directly said I didn't believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. I am now retracting that statement. Personally, I do think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed but I'm pragmatic enough to know there is no way it will. I'm calling for some reasonable limits on the kind of guns and ammo available for sale. I never suggested severe limits as you claim. I have agreed if crazy people will still kill. However I just want to make it very difficult for crazy people to kill 50 people in 2 minutes. I contend if they only have the ability to kill 3 people in 2 minutes, 24 lives would have been spared yesterday.
You boldly assert that you want limits on gun ownership and then continue to say it won't make any difference anyway and you never make any concrete and specific suggestions as to how gun access should be limited. This makes your claim sound hollow.
Yes, we should help those who need help. That won't keep all these nuts from killing. I think we should try to limit collateral damage when these people do go off the deep end.
Why are you so devoted to allowing public access to semi and fully automatic guns and the 45 round clips that come along with them anyway? If you're not, then we're arguing for the same point anyway and this whole discussion is moot.
flowerseverywhere
12-15-12, 7:49am
as I read through this thread, no one mentioned the bombardment of violence that an average person has. I rarely watch TV, and when I have been exposed to TV I am amazed by the CSI type shows that are very violent, show little shock reaction of the actors to violence and blood.
We all know there have been troops in the middle east for years, but we turn a blind eye towards the fact we are bombing and killing as a society.
Even today the headlines on the news are more likely to talk about what star is in rehab or who is wearing what than the root of the evils of our society. A chance at 15 minutes of fame could be a motive?
I don't know the answer any more than anyone else, but this morning, as I first read about this tragedy my heart was sad for the lives ruined and lost.
catherine
12-15-12, 8:29am
Why on earth did the shooter's mother have guns if she had an emotionally disturbed child in the house. A gun would be the last thing I would have.
I think technology has a lot to do with the increase in these kinds of mass shootings. So many young people are withdrawing from interacting on a personal level with other people because they have video games and movies, some on-line and some quite violent; social media like facebook where you can have hundreds of cyber friends, even if you don't have any real ones, etc. So many kids have grown up this way that I really think their brains just haven't developed the way they should, due to lack of real world interactions.
Also causing it is the breakdown of the family structure, and the lack of parental influence; it has been superseded by the media.
We have also lost a lot of our social fabric. So many people are just not involved in their communities any more.
I just couldn't reply to this thread yesterday. I just had to indulge in silence for a while.
I still do not feel ready to start my own analysis of why this happened. I'm not God, and I certainly am not ready to diagnose Adam Lanza's mental health, or how to turn the horrific violence in this country around.
However, ironically, as we were trying to find something to watch last night after we just couldn't watch another replay of the day on all the channels, my husband turned on a program he had recorded for me (because I'm on the road so much, if he sees something on TV he things I'll like, he's record it for me to watch later). It happened to be the PBS special, The Amish Experience.
Wow, what a jolting juxtaposition of worlds! They talked about why the Amish have seemed stuck in past centuries and "hopelessly outdated", and what it came down to was every rule they made was made in order to protect the community and social fabric as a whole. Nothing was more important than binding together as a community under God. They banned telephones at the turn of the century, because if you can call someone, why would you visit them? If you can drive, you might pick up and leave the family and the community, when really, all they needed was right there.
Then of course the show went on to talk about their own massacre a few years back, when 5 girls were killed in the Amish schoolhouse by a non-Amish. The forgiveness was truly inspiring. The elders went to the killer's family THAT NIGHT and forgave the family. The father of one of the girls who was killed attended the killer's funeral.
If we could absorb one tenth of their values, we'd be in a much better place as a nation and a society.
sweetana3
12-15-12, 8:31am
flowerseverywhere, I totally agree with you. It is sometimes hard to avoid violence in the media even when trying. I had one poster on another forum bemoan that her real life was not turning out like Friends or other TV shows which "must be showing it like it is". I felt so sad.
She could not see the discrepancy between real life and manufactured entertainment. There are few consequences that are really played up in the media. Sometimes even jail is prettified.
Yesterday, the shock of the event acted as a catalyst to help keep my emotions at bay, however, today, this morning, I'm angry. I'm not sure what disgusts me more, the shooter, who killed all those babies and people, or the president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.
Yesterday, the shock of the event acted as a catalyst to help keep my emotions at bay, however, today, this morning, I'm angry. I'm not sure what disgusts me more, the shooter, who killed all those babies and people, or the president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.
There were a lot of empty speeches yesterday - and a lot of people who would have criticized if they weren't made. What else can one do in a situation like that? There is nothing one can say to counterbalance something like that.
But weighing dead children against empty speeches, my disgust is definitely more with the killing.
I think our ability as a nation in doing anything about these horrific things is limited by our freedoms. Its just like Congress. We're deadlocked. Some people believe personal freedom is first and foremost. Some people believe everyone has the right to own guns. Some people believe they have the right to make horribly violent video games and movies. Some people believe they have the right to wear hoods and burn crosses. Some people believe they have the right to employ people to work for them in another country, so they can get rich without paying much for it. Some people believe you should believe in exactly what they believe in. Some people believe its acceptable to have cultures overtaken and ruined by aggressive immigrants who have no interest in assimilating. Some people believe in giving murderers rights. Some people believe in accepting all kinds of behaviors, because it falls under some constitutional right. And all these people are allowed to express their beliefs, because our constitution allows them to. And in our attempts to be "more than the animals", perhaps we accept far more types of behaviors than we should. Perhaps we try too hard to be fair.
Seems like we might be seeing where so much freedom leads us.??
Even though all the shootings lately ended up being done by people who were loners.......who were withdrawn.........who had facebook pages that spoke of violence, who were misfits, our system of justice and rights makes it unfair to look into these individuals ahead of time.
We're never going to be free of evil. But because our nation insists on assuring everyone so many personal rights/freedoms, we're always going to end up in this same place, mourning over innocent people who were gunned down.
I don't know what the answer is. We seem to be a tangled mass of selfishness/spoiledness/short-sightedness/and a fear of losing any right or freedom, no matter what the cost to the society.
Too many people don't want to give up anything, in order to have a safer society.
I mentioned the huge amount of violence we are exposed to early on in this thread. I know when I was growing up in the 50s there was no overt violence in the media. Even when the sheriff shot the bad guy, he just fell down - there was no blood. I grew up innocent that way and am floored whenever I see what is on TV these days for children to have to absorb. Surely it enures them to violence in general. My thought today is why are there so many angry young men out there?
Note from a psych nurse .... Antisocial personality is usually the diagnosis for what we call "criminality". Which means that the very fact that someone killed is a stong indicator of that diagnosis.
Axis 1 disorders are depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.
Axis 2 disorders are personality disorders.
They are very different and treatmentis very different. They get mixed together but its better if they are thought of separately. Meds don't do much for axis 2. People with axis 1 are rarely violent.
Lots of axis 2 in prisons.
happystuff
12-15-12, 9:58am
I'm not sure what disgusts me more........president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.
Did you ever have just one little thing just push you over the edge?
"crocodile tears"?!?! Sigh... suffice to say we disagree. I don't think I'll even bother going back to read any other comments. Or anything else in this forum for a while. I think a self-imposed holiday break is needed. Blessings, KINDNESS, and goodwill wishes to all.
gimmethesimplelife
12-15-12, 10:26am
Yesterday, the shock of the event acted as a catalyst to help keep my emotions at bay, however, today, this morning, I'm angry. I'm not sure what disgusts me more, the shooter, who killed all those babies and people, or the president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.Mrs. M, hi! I worked most ot the day yesterday so I didn't hear the speech but while I was waiting downtown for my banquet time to start I sat in the lobby of the Hyatt and heard on TV that Barak Obama had cried for the children.....I didn't hear the speech, and perhaps it was empty - but I am of the opinion that I am so grateful it was Obama there and not Romney. What I needed was somebody acknowledging how horrible this is - not forceful words coupled with no action. I am impressed that he cried for the children. Will this change anything? No. But the children deserve this gesture of respect in my book. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
12-15-12, 10:38am
I have been doing some thinking about why I personally believe such a thing could happen and my thoughts are kind of dark and depressing.....youall have been warned. I am thinking that the very nature of what American society has become pretty much fosters this kind of behavior. I will stop short of the verb encourages but I feel fosters fits. There is so little community today, so little time for parents to spend with their kids, so much attention paid to prettify the outside and look successful with little time spend to anything under the surface. So much emphasis for the majority on things and not on emotions and relationships and experiences. And the what the economy has become.....Pretty much the ticket to the middle class is non existent for many today, what with jobs being outsourced and offshored and corners being cut whenever possible to maximize returns with no thought of the social consequences. Honestly, I am not trying to stir anyone up here, but.....With what society has become, why does anyone step in to defend it? This is utterly beyond my comprehension, it really is. But then again, I have never really fit in anywhere and thinking outside the box is like breathing air to me - it comes naturally and is essential for life. I sure would like to see more commentary on the media about what in society is sick and full of rot that would foster such behavior but I don't think most Americans are capable of facing such, and because of this, I don't have much hope that such events can be prevented or that they will decrease in the future. Just a ray of sunshine today, I know, but on this one I don't see any stars aligning to provide any change - not without a serious look at American (and perhaps Western in general) society and a wholesale cleansing of such. Good luck getting that to happen.....Rob PS But I do want to leave something positive. I was speaking to a very close friend yesterday who said what little we can do is to be pleasant and patient with people in our daily lives and just be decent as much as we can, and I do like that.
goldensmom
12-15-12, 11:41am
Yesterday, the shock of the event acted as a catalyst to help keep my emotions at bay, however, today, this morning, I'm angry. I'm not sure what disgusts me more, the shooter, who killed all those babies and people, or the president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.
Mr. Obama or the shooter? I’m definitely more disgusted by the actions of shooter who murdered 20 children and several adults than with Mr. Obama’s action of standing behind a podium and giving a speech.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-12, 11:57am
Of course they are crocodile tears. Dude assasinates people all over the world very much including kids with his drones (or they are real tears of a badly splintered personality, maybe we are all splintered, but that level of splintering really takes the cake - you need either mental illness or the corruption of the ring of power to get that warped). I'm not particularly disgusted with a speech, I am disgusted by Mr Drone murder himself though, in general, always. There's been more of these major crazies going on shooting sprees under Obama than ever, but but ...... a lot of factors coming to a head? Yes, yes of course, chickens really coming home to roost on American society, but president "moral" (all the releases to the media on the murder program become philosophy 101 lectures with the name dropping) murder is not exactly setting a good example. That someone in our society who is already many screws falling out, could become confused about when murder is ok and not, is understandable really. We don't even limit the murders to warmaking anymore we have targeted killings by drones these days.
Spartana
12-15-12, 12:43pm
With due respect, I was not especially expressing opinion. I pretty much aired as much opinion and hot air that I had in the previous round. I'm just saying what I think is a realistic expectation. Gun control is the easiest way for politicians to react to things like this and this most recent issue I think will push them to the brink. I seriously doubt there will be any big push to explore sociological cause and effect. It's too touchy-feely for politics.
I support certain types of gun control. I think even if it just saves one or a hand full of lives it's worth it, and much or most of it is really not a lot of skin off the common gun owners rights.
I agree - and , as a gun owner myself, am a firm believer in stricter gun control measures. I was just saying that I don't think it will stop gun violence unless you completely elminate ALL firearms for everyone - including completely banning hunting rifles and shotguns from everyone as a .12 gauge pump action shotgun (a common weapon) and even an old bolt action rifle can be used to kill many people in a short period of time. I believe Calif, where I' live, have the toughest gun control laws in the nation yet we also have one of the higest crime and death rates by firearm in the nation. So while there probably will be tighter access to firearms, I really don't think it will stop these kinds of rampages. I think this guy was mentally ill as I cannot wrap my mind around how someone could kill innocent children - it is just totally uncomprehensible to me and leaves me ful of despair. But I also look back thru history - some current - at what seeminly normal men and women do to children in war, during the Holacaust or genocides and ethnic cleansings. I recently watched a PBS show on the Children of Auswitz who survived the death camps and it just boogles the mind that people can do such horrendous things to other people - especially children. It does leave me in deep despair. Heck I'm weeping now in the library as I write this.
Spartana
12-15-12, 12:59pm
The facts are fluid but as it stands at 8:00 it looks like the killing was done with two very average handguns that were legally owned by the mother. It would have been illegal for the shooter to possess them but those laws did not stop this horrible crime.
I haven't had a chance to watch the news yet but I have heard that they were regular handguns (9mm) and a rifle but that has probably been updated by now. I know that there has been some comments here about how easy it is in the US to get (legally) assault style weapons with extended clips, as well as other things, but that's not true. Those are illegal to possess and the federal government bans those things (although that ban may have ended - or will end soon). An AR-15 with a 10-round magazine is nothing more then a .22 hunting rifle and both can do the same amount of harm. But really, as I said above, the average hunting rifle or shotgun that many folks in the States and Canada have in their homes can cause as much harm, or more, as a semi-automatic handgun - and can be easily made concealable. So it probably doesn't matter if a firearm is legal or illegal.
Yeah this, or, no restrictions if you buy it in a 'private' sale. Me to you has no restrictions.
Depends on the state. Me to you in Calif means I go to jail:
California Penal Code 12070 PC, a misdemeanor, prohibits you from selling, leasing, or transferring firearms unless you have a valid license to do so. Violating this California gun law subjects you to six months in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine for every firearm you sell, lease, or transfer
Yes, exactly. They do nothing to keep bad guys out, no armed guards as you say. It only impacts the victims.
At the schools in innner city LA and elsewhere in Calif, there are metal detectors and armed police officers at the entrances to schools. The campuses are closed and completely fenced in. No entry or access except thru the metal detector and armed school police (not even security guards but POST Academy experienced police officers). But in a small rural school like Sandy Hook - whose sign outside the entrance says "Visitors Welcome" - that kind of police vigilence would seem riduculous and unneeded.
Drunk drivers kill people, and we don't say "alcohol doesn't kill" or "cars don't kill" as an inane defense against regulating both alcohol consumption & driving. We regulate both, because it's the lethal combination that is what kills.
I disagree with this because we don't say acohol or cars kill - we say that people kill. We blame the person who chooses to drink and drive. We recognize that the alcohol didn't open it's container and consume itself - it needed a human to do that. We recognize that the car didn't fill up it's gas tank, put a key in the ignition and put the car in gear to drive itself - it needed a human WITH INTENT to do that. We regconize that the lead pipe that was used to kill Colonel Mustard in the Conservory, didn't act on it's own accord, it was Miss Scarlett who, weilding the lead pipe, killed him. We don't ban lead pipes or cars or even alcohol when they are used as tools to kill someone, intentionally or by accident. We recognize that without a human to use those tools, they would sit there and do nothing but be the inanimate objects they are. The same with a firearm. It can not load itself, remove it's own safety, and pull it's own trigger. It takes a human to do that - again, a human with intent to do those things. So we need to blame the human and not the tool which - like the lead pipe and unstarted car - is just a hunk of inanimate metal.
SteveinMN
12-15-12, 1:47pm
You boldly assert that you want limits on gun ownership and then continue to say it won't make any difference anyway and you never make any concrete and specific suggestions as to how gun access should be limited. This makes your claim sound hollow.
Yes, we should help those who need help. That won't keep all these nuts from killing. I think we should try to limit collateral damage when these people do go off the deep end.
Why are you so devoted to allowing public access to semi and fully automatic guns and the 45 round clips that come along with them anyway? If you're not, then we're arguing for the same point anyway and this whole discussion is moot.
I will try to make this one shorter. :)
This is not a "devotion" for me. I do not own a gun, nor do I ever plan to own one. I think the Second Amendment as written is outmoded; we have a "well-regulated militia" -- the U.S. Army and the National Guard. I'm no fan of the NRA. I see nothing wrong with requiring a prospective gun owner to pass a background check to buy a gun and to demonstrate (s)he knows how to use it safely. I can see value in a national registry of gun owners so that trends of gun or ammo purchases would be tagged the same way "odd" purchases on a credit card tip off possible fraud (though I believe a good chunk of the country would have a hard time with that). I suspect you and I are on the same page for all of this.
If guns somehow never ever existed, Lanza still could have lobbed a bomb through the windows of the school. He could have driven a car or truck through the wall. He could have poisoned people. I'm not defending guns; just saying that the force behind this was mental illness, not access to one particular kind of weapon. And, really, would this horrific situation truly be any more or less sad if it were 37 people killed? 87? 7? What, really, are we discussing here? The mode of the deaths? Or that they happened in the first place? I vote for the latter. Even one child dead in a classroom was too many.
We need to provide people like Adam Lanza with help. Remove the stigma of mental illness. Equip ourselves to recognize it before it's a headline. Make it easier to get treatment (and not let the money be the barrier). Addressing mental illness can not only help elminate future Sandy Hooks and Auroras, it can help eliminate future John Wayne Gacy-style serial murders and sick people sending anthrax through the mail. Removing access to guns, even completely (which won't happen), is just treating a symptom, not the disease.
Norway actually has less gun control than many US states, and is kinda like texas in a way. :) BUt, yeah, they have problems too.
Yeah. For me, the focus is on this. If gun control doesn't decrease gun violence (or violence in general), what can we do to actually get rid of violence?
That's the solution to this problem -- solving violence.
It's hard to compare crime or gun statistics of just one european country to the entire US just due to population and land area differences alone. Probably a more realistic approach would be to look at ALL of Europe - which has a population probably double the US depending on how many countries you count. It's the same when people say why can't the USA have a military force the size of Britains or France(or New Zealand :-)!) - well because the USA is gazillion times bigger and more populous then any one european country alone. Gotta compare apples to apples.
It might be a good time to watch (or rewatch) Bowling for Columbine, which points out that while Canada and Switzerland have similar--or higher--rates of gun ownership, they are much less likely to suffer deadly rampages like these recent ones.
I'm one of those who believes the Second Amendment was written about local militias--like the National Guard--and never intended for some angry yahoo to have a collection of semi-automatic weapons and a barn full of ammo clips so as to fight off his neighbors in some fever-dream end of the world Armageddon scenario. But it's not my issue and never has been.
I do think a combination of disaffection, drugged* and hormone-crazed adolescents, thousands of hours of practice on shoot-em-up video games, broken families, and general societal malaise takes its toll. And when one of these stunted individuals decides to take his revenge on the cruel world, it's only too easy in this country for him to get his hands on weapons that guarantee maximum mayhem.
*by drugged, I'm not referring to street drugs, but to prescribed psychotropics.
From the NIMH.gov website:
In response, the FDA adopted a "black box" label warning indicating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in some children and adolescents with MDD. A black-box warning is the most serious type of warning in prescription drug labeling.
The warning also notes that children and adolescents taking SSRI medications should be closely monitored for any worsening in depression, emergence of suicidal thinking or behavior, or unusual changes in behavior, such as sleeplessness, agitation, or withdrawal from normal social situations. Close monitoring is especially important during the first four weeks of treatment. SSRI medications usually have few side effects in children and adolescents, but for unknown reasons, they may trigger agitation and abnormal behavior in certain individuals.
We need to provide people like Adam Lanza with help. Remove the stigma of mental illness. Equip ourselves to recognize it before it's a headline.
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
The population of Canada is around 34 million and Switzerland is 7 million. The USA has over 333 million. Even talking per 100,000 for each gun related crime or accident or mass shooting, population is still going to effect how a group of people act. I remember several recent mass shootings in Canada so it does happen there. Maybe the death toll was less, maybe the weapons used were Mom or Dad's hunting rifle or shotgun instead of a handgun, but a rampage is a rampage, and the question to ask is "why" someone has the intent to do harm. That is the thing that needs to be looked at IMHO just as much as reviewing (and possibly changing or uniifying) current gun laws is.
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
And by what standards do we judge someone "sane" or "insane"? Or to be PC: competent or incompetent?
Too bad we don't have some pre-cogs. (The Minority Report).
We can't even find time with the huge population to do in-the-car driver's tests anymore. I can't imagine doing a psych eval on everyone. Plus.......I imagine they would be wrong (in both directions) alot of the time.
Supposedly, the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary had just recently updated their security measures. But I heard that the guy broke a window to get in. It also sounds as if she intentionally opened up the PA system in her office, while the gunman was confronting her, so all the classrooms could hear, and take necessary steps to protect the children. He killed her too.
This is what haunts me..........if I knew my child was lying dead there, I would go crazy not being able to go in to her/him. They laid there for a long time, before the parents were allowed to see them, since it was a crime scene. I don't care how much blood there was around.......I would need to lay there with them and hold them. :(
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/remake/biggrin.gif
Maybe I really was scarred by those psych classes in college, but I don't believe for a minute you can engineer a healthy society by sending out an army of mental health workers to administer drugs and talk therapy.
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
Why not just stop the practice of criminalizing effective self defense in certain places such as schools and government buildings? Take away the soft targets where these things always occur.
iris lily
12-15-12, 2:48pm
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
Immediately after all of the guns are removed from the populace. Then it 's easy enough for every enemy of the state to be labeled crazy and a danger to society.
[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;118447] They could call it the "war on guns" but I'm not sure it would be any more effective than the war on drugs, or terror or .....QUOTE]
Yep you're probably right about that. Even with drugs being illegal they still get into this country to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Even those that get nabbed by the coast guard or other federal agencies in the millions of dollar range are just a drop in the bucket. And weapons smuggling is already a big problem - although mostly going out of this country to Central and South America and Asia (and Canada and Europe and Russia and Africa) - often times used to pay for the drugs that get smuggled in. Weapons smuggling, like drug smuggling, will probably increase into the USA greatly if a full ban on all weapons happens. And then there will be no way to requlate weapons or enforce gunownership laws. I just know that for every drug or weapons (or illegal imigrant) trafficer we apprehended, 20 more got thru. Maybe the federal law enforcement agencies aren't bloated enough?
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-12, 2:53pm
There's the tricky part - when do we roll out the mandatory psych evals for everyone?
Well it seems to me these things can be approached with a heavy hand or a light one. You can provide services for people to use if they voluntarily present themself (and as long as they believe they won't be punished for it somehow (preexisting condition or a record searchable by employers etc. etc.) some people will definitely present, there are no doubt those in our society who wish they had mental health help but can't afford it, though I'm not sure that population intersects all that much with the psycho killer population). Just like you can provide food stamps for people below a certain income or you can start dictating that people must eat whatever you version of a healthy diet is with those foodstamps. The thing is for a light hand you need to have a society that believes in both a safety net and a certain respect for the individuals using it. And I'm not even pretending I see those as dominent trends in U.S. society, like we're commited to a welfare state with great protection on individual civil liberties and privacies or something - who am I kidding and in what delusional alternate universe U.S. utopia do I live - there's no strong commitment to either!
And I admit the psyche care issue is a LOT more complex than food stamps, so that even attempting to approach it with a light hand can easily become dogmatic (not to mention all the vested interests). Most criticisms of psyche (not talking the scientology ones!) were often based on some real history of abuse (of course there is a history of performing electroshocks and performing frontal lobotomies and so on) and of course psyche always looks at individuals, always individuals, and thus in many ways is a closed and *EXTREMELY* dogmatic thought system itself, but the society itself *IS* increasingly dysfunctional in my view ....
So meh screw it all, simple income redistribution would work better. :) Mind you there may be other countries that provide mental health care, but there are no countries that are so in love with the cult of mental health as the U.S. already is, more shrinks per capita than anywhere, we already believe it with all our being (but only for those who can afford it!) and .... the results on a big scale really aren't that impressive. But better provisioning of things like simple meds for schizophrenia does sound sensible.
iris lily
12-15-12, 2:55pm
http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/remake/biggrin.gif
Maybe I really was scarred by those psych classes in college, but I don't believe for a minute you can engineer a healthy society by sending out an army of mental health workers to administer drugs and talk therapy.
yup, I think I trust that lot even less than my "progressive" brethren. They are so bloody sure of themselves yet each decade their current thought is thrown out and a whole new modality put in place.
(Love that world "modality" brougth to us by Lisa Kudrow's Web Therapy tv show, she is funny!
Why not just stop the practice of criminalizing effective self defense in certain places such as schools and government buildings? Take away the soft targets where these things always occur.
It could have some impact, although not many people have experience reacting under fire even if they have trained and practised using their firearms. I remember a number of incidents in Iraq where the the response of trained soldiers under fire was to shoot down anything that moved in the area, which probably would not be the best strategy in a school or government building. Also, anyone with a drawn firearm becomes a suspected shooter. Do you wait and determine which are friends or foes, or do you shoot before they can?
Another issue - many of these shooters appear to engage in these events with no intention of coming out of it alive or intact, unlike things like robberies or burglaries. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be?
Another issue - many of these shooters appear to engage in these events with no intention of coming out of it alive or intact, unlike things like robberies or burglaries. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be?
All the recent shootings of this type have taken place within soft targets, movie theaters, shopping centers and schools, areas where law abiding citizens have been forbidden to possess their weapons. I suspect this is not coincidental.
yup, I think I trust that lot even less than my "progressive" brethren. They are so bloody sure of themselves yet each decade their current thought is thrown out and a whole new modality put in place.
(Love that world "modality" brougth to us by Lisa Kudrow's Web Therapy tv show, she is funny!
"1984" anyone? All us gun owners will be sent off by the Ministry of Love for re-education. Free education - Yipee!!
Mass pych evaluations aside, I do think requirering a background check that looking at mental health hospitalizations (what for? How long ago? Is there still a problem?) may be needed before issuing a permit or license to buy a firearm. I think the same thing could be said before issuseing a drivers license or pilots license or semi-truck license. Personally don't think it would matter in the case of mass shootings, serial killers, or those who become enraged like road-rage drivers, but it may keep people who suffer from delusions or pychotic breaks from owning firearms. Not that they can't get them elsewhere as this guy did.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-12, 3:12pm
Why not just stop the practice of criminalizing effective self defense in certain places such as schools and government buildings? Take away the soft targets where these things always occur.
Because armed teachers in the actual felt experience of human beings would be a darn site more totalitarian than confiscating ALL guns tomorow. What are the gun laws for minors? I don't know, I imagine many places if not everywhere minor sale and posession is illegal. Ok I'm not defending gun possion for 6 year olds (and these kids *were* that young). I'm pointing out an imbalance of power, when the teacher possess a deadly weapon and the kids posess nothing and how totalitarian that really is. It's way more than posession of a ruler (and no not for corporal punishment even then but ... it is not comparable). It's just scary as heck.
The kids forceably *disarmed* (ok 10 year olds aren't packing, again not a problem in the grand scheme of things at all - only a problem in power imbalance), the kids forced to go to school (by their parents yes, but also *legally*, mandatory school attendance laws), and the authority figures all carrying *deadly* weapons. Scary. Armed school cops or security guards on campus are a little more removed, since few kids interact much with or actually have to obey them, but are those actually illegal presently?
Another issue - many of these shooters appear to engage in these events with no intention of coming out of it alive or intact, unlike things like robberies or burglaries. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be?
I don't think it would work as a deterrent, but as a means to prevent further killings at that time. If a person was armed, like a recent man in Florida was during an attack, he/she could have prehaps stopped the shooter from inflicting more harm. At the least, even with someone who was not sucicidal, an armed person could have distracted the shooter and drew his fire to him/herself long enough for the kids to run away to safety.
Because armed teachers in the actual felt experience of human beings would be a darn site more totalitarian than confiscating ALL guns tomorow. What are the gun laws for minors? I don't know, I imagine many places if not everywhere minor sale and posession is illegal. Ok I'm not defending gun possion for 6 year olds (and these kids *were* that young). I'm pointing out an imbalance of power, when the teacher possess a deadly weapon and the kids posess nothing and how totalitarian that really is. It's way more than posession of a ruler (and no not for corporal punishment even then but ... it is not comparable). It's just scary as heck.
The kids forceably *disarmed* (ok 10 year olds aren't packing, again not a problem in the grand scheme of things at all - only a problem in power imbalance), the kids forced to go to school (by their parents yes, but also *legally*, mandatory school attendance laws), and the authority figures all carrying *deadly* weapons. Scary. Armed school cops or security guards on campus are a little more removed, since few kids interact much with or actually have to obey them, but are those actually illegal presently?
I don't believe I suggested that all teachers be armed, I pointed out that it is currently against the law for any teacher (or administrator or janitor or groundskeeper) to be armed. That's what makes it a soft target.
Here is what Bill Moyers has to say. He nails my sentiments exactly:
http://www.upworthy.com/what-is-the-true-cost-of-americas-obsession-with-guns?g=2&c=ufb1
Of course they are crocodile tears. Dude assasinates people all over the world very much including kids with his drones (or they are real tears of a badly splintered personality, maybe we are all splintered, but that level of splintering really takes the cake - you need either mental illness or the corruption of the ring of power to get that warped). I'm not particularly disgusted with a speech, I am disgusted by Mr Drone murder himself though, in general, always. There's been more of these major crazies going on shooting sprees under Obama than ever, but but ...... a lot of factors coming to a head? Yes, yes of course, chickens really coming home to roost on American society, but president "moral" (all the releases to the media on the murder program become philosophy 101 lectures with the name dropping) murder is not exactly setting a good example. That someone in our society who is already many screws falling out, could become confused about when murder is ok and not, is understandable really. We don't even limit the murders to warmaking anymore we have targeted killings by drones these days.
ANM...sigh...I like reading your opinion, but, you have really got to give it a rest! Enough with this NDAA stuff! I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing pretty young 20-30's? You have to know that ALL Presidents have had this power. All of them. If not with drones, then spy's or secret patrols/operations. This has been a reality of our government since, well, for a very very long time! And really, except for President Cheney, I feel non of them did/would abuse that power. Barack Obama isn't 'killing people and jailing Americans for no reason at all'. These are bad guys that the military are taking out. Yes, he directs it, but I guarantee you he isn't micro-managing this. And, being a pragmatic person, and one who lives in this reality based world, he is making the choice of the lesser of two evils. This is not a nice world, as it turns out, and there are plenty of very bad people out there who would just love to kill you. You, personally! And everyone around you, and your whole town, etc...And they accomplished that on 9/11. And I can guarantee you they are plotting ways to do that again, and more, even as I type this. That's the real world, and it isn't Leave it to Beaver Land.
President Obama, who is charged with preventing another 9/11, is making the choice of selective elimination/destruction of these bad people and their organizations, or sending another 100,000 of our young men and women, destroying another country, and sacrificing thousands of them to accomplish the same outcome.
Obama isn't Stalin, or Hitler, or an evil murderer. He is a smart, pragmatic President of the most powerful nation on earth, trying to deal with the realities of THIS WORLD.
You must know, the President of the United States can not be a pacifist. He can not afford to be one. You can not imagine the scope of the real world dangers he has to deal with everyday.
As far as 'crocodile tears', well, you apparently didn't watch his press conference. And I believe you are letting your rants cloud your perception.
catherine
12-15-12, 4:01pm
Here is what Bill Moyers has to say. He nails my sentiments exactly:
http://www.upworthy.com/what-is-the-true-cost-of-americas-obsession-with-guns?g=2&c=ufb1
+1
It's hard to compare crime or gun statistics of just one european country to the entire US just due to population and land area differences alone. Probably a more realistic approach would be to look at ALL of Europe - which has a population probably double the US depending on how many countries you count. It's the same when people say why can't the USA have a military force the size of Britains or France(or New Zealand :-)!) - well because the USA is gazillion times bigger and more populous then any one european country alone. Gotta compare apples to apples.
Well, that's just it.
I never compared one european country with all of the US. I compared NOrway to TExas in terms of laws -- not all of the US. NZ laws look a lot like CA laws. German law looks a lot like NY law.
I have been making the argument throughout the interwebs that you can't compare "US law" with "european law" because states differ just as countries differ. And, there are the massive cultural differences (many european countries -- like norway -- have a cultural cohesion, where as Germany is struggling with the massive immigrant influx which might be increasing violence in that country).
I also posted a lot of great academic papers, but I don't think anyone has read them.
I
All the recent shootings of this type have taken place within soft targets, movie theaters, shopping centers and schools, areas where law abiding citizens have been forbidden to possess their weapons. I suspect this is not coincidental.
I suspect it's because that's where people gather. Not many mass shootings in corn fields...
Note from a psych nurse .... Antisocial personality is usually the diagnosis for what we call "criminality". Which means that the very fact that someone killed is a stong indicator of that diagnosis.
Axis 1 disorders are depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc.
Axis 2 disorders are personality disorders.
They are very different and treatmentis very different. They get mixed together but its better if they are thought of separately. Meds don't do much for axis 2. People with axis 1 are rarely violent.
Lots of axis 2 in prisons.
THanks for this insight.
I suspect it's because that's where people gather. Not many mass shootings in corn fields...
Yes, I think so too. I do not think that folks deranged enough to commit mass murder analyze where an armed populace may reside, I think they just head to places where there are lots of people. In fact, given the very high gun ownership in this country, both legal & illegal, it's not unreasonable to assume that many people in public are carrying concealed weapons.
I look forward to the day when mental illness is de-stigmatized and care is widely available and affordable. As well, when guns are very, very difficult to get. I speak as a former gun owner.
PS - a neighbor with a violent criminal past, who is 19 years old, is apparently hiding an assault weapon under his bed. One of his siblings told me about it. I am on the verge of calling the police about this, as it feels very very uncomfortable to know this. However, it raises the specter of who else in my 'hood have weapons & violent convictions? I do not know.
In fact, given the very high gun ownership in this country, both legal & illegal, it's not unreasonable to assume that many people in public are carrying concealed weapons.
Not in public schools. Federal law prohibits it, which prevents law abiding people from doing so.
Not in public schools. Federal law prohibits it, which prevents law abiding people from doing so.
Good. I look forward to the day when all public places are gun free.
Nothing more to add except one data point I heard: the shooter's older brother apparently had not talked to his younger brother since 2010. What's up with that? I know that two adult siblings are not responsible for each other, but there's got to be an explanation for this.
Good. I look forward to the day when all public places are gun free.
Well, that would expand the potential victim pool. Personally, I'd rather restrict it than expand it.
Nothing more to add except one data point I heard: the shooter's older brother apparently had not talked to his younger brother since 2010. What's up with that? I know that two adult siblings are not responsible for each other, but there's got to be an explanation for this.
I noticed that; I took it to be part of the disaffection I mentioned earlier.
I noticed that; I took it to be part of the disaffection I mentioned earlier.
I also took this to be part of the disaffection. Same with the Dad. I have this visual (probably way way off) of this young man getting into an argument with his MOm and her saying something about how wonderful all her little school children are to her and why can't her own son be just as good. He gets into a frenzy, kills her and decides to "punish" all her pupils and make them pay for being so good to his mother in her eyes compared to him. Mental illness. UGH. Of course the fact that this seemed pre-meditated eliminates that theory. Maybe his Mom found out his plans (which would be more effective to hurt his mom if she were alive to witness his actions) and tried to stop him and he killed her.
Well, that's just it.
I never compared one european country with all of the US. I compared NOrway to TExas in terms of laws -- not all of the US. NZ laws look a lot like CA laws. German law looks a lot like NY law.
I have been making the argument throughout the interwebs that you can't compare "US law" with "european law" because states differ just as countries differ. And, there are the massive cultural differences (many european countries -- like norway -- have a cultural cohesion, where as Germany is struggling with the massive immigrant influx which might be increasing violence in that country).
I also posted a lot of great academic papers, but I don't think anyone has read them.
I
I think I read them - and I agreed with you and the way to did your comparision. But you are one of the few I see that do it that way. Most people just look at one european country (and one that is comparitively gun violence free) and compare that to the USA without looking at all or at least parts of Europe (including countries like Bulgaria or Serbia or some of the old eastern bloc countries) as a whole. I don't know what that comparision looks like but I agree that most of europe has a different cultural climate then the USA deals with. But even they have to deal with things like this as I remember a shooting in an elementry school there not too long ago. Can't remeber the country but it was one that banned guns.
It was Britain. From the BBC: The Cumbria incident is the third mass-shooting incident in the UK in which a lone gunman ... a 43-year-old walked into the school and began firing
Well, that would expand the potential victim pool. Personally, I'd rather restrict it than expand it.
I still don't get this one. 1) you need to be willing and able to carry (and pay for it) 2) you need to know how to use your firearm well 3) you need be able and willing to use it under fire 4) you need to be willing and able to shoot/kill someone 5) If you're not lucky (unlucky?) enough to have the shooter present themselves to you, you'd have to actively go after them and abandon anyone you are protecting or trying to direct from the scene. I would think this would be a tiny portion of those who own firearms overall.
Offset that by incidents caused by those now carrying (firearm discharged due to road rage, intoxication, arguments, infidelity, vigilantism, take your pick), I'm not sure if the net effect would be better or worse.
We could do the idea of air marshals but just have them everywhere, but I expect it would be very expensive.
I still don't get this one...
It's the element of risk and reward.
Are you at greater risk attempting to kill strangers you can reasonably assume to be defenseless or are you at greater risk attempting to kill strangers who may shoot back?
Conversely, you can think of it in terms of success. If your goal is to kill as many people as possible before being taken out, which group would you choose?
It seems reasonable to me that the odds are better under both scenarios with the first group.
It's the element of risk and reward.
Are you at greater risk attempting to kill strangers you can reasonably assume to be defenseless or are you at greater risk attempting to kill strangers who may shoot back?
Conversely, you can think of it in terms of success. If your goal is to kill as many people as possible before being taken out, which group would you choose?
It seems reasonable to me that the odds are better under both scenarios with the first group.
If the population you were detering was reasonable - or rational. In this case it isn't.
And back to my point, even for someone rationally considering such an act, unless school staffs are beefed up to a level of "combat readiness", or hires special staff, I don't think the guns will make a lot of difference to them.
awakenedsoul
12-15-12, 5:56pm
I have been asking myself a lot of questions about this horrible tragedy. Here are some things that stood out to me.
He was brilliant. (This took intelligence, planning, and choreography...like 9/11.)
He got the guns from his mother. This is so common. Parents get firearms, and the sons use them.
Guns are so efficient. You can kill so many people so quickly.
When pondering a solution I thought "I wonder if they had police dogs in every classroom and in the office if that would deter it?" I live in a neighborhood filled with men who are on drugs, have guns, and have criminal histories. One thing I've noticed is that they're all afraid of German shepherds. The police dogs are so smart and so fast that it usually stops a criminal. I've watched the videos of K9 units. A German shepherd will chase them off a bridge and give their life to defend a person. German shepherds are also excellent baby sitters.
True.
The other problem is vague language in general:
"The US needs gun control!" doesn't acknowledge that the US already has gun control -- and diverse gun control laws based on the individual states.
"The US needs to ban semi-automatic weapons!" doesn't acknowledge that these are already controlled, and the person who asserted this lives here in NZ, where semi-automatic weapons are legal under two different categories: military style and sporting. It is a tougher licensing process to get the military style, but still possible, and sporting is fairly easy just as in the US. And, they wouldn't want to "ban" them in NZ because people hunt here and do all kinds of sporting gun activities and they want access to their sporting gun activities with military semi-automatics. Automatics are banned, here, but you can still collect them -- they just have to be disabled. I thought that was interesting. And, the same is true of *some states* in the US (i think California is one of them).
So, for them to make this statement was ignorant. "NO, of course people should be able to legally own and target shoot semi-automatic weapons and/or use them for hunting like we do here." right, except that you jsut said that the US needs to "ban" them.
What this demonstrates to me is that most people dont' even know their own country's gun laws, let alone the US. And so this whole argument is just a "knee jerk" reaction as opposed to a thoughtful discourse on what is or isn't working.
Why is it that there aren't (or haven't been) a lot of gun-related deaths in NZ or shootings like this (not since the 1960s apparently)? It could be cultural cohesion and ideology, population density, nanny-state benefits that flattens rich/poor issues, etc. Could be a lot of things. And gun control might also be part of that equation, too.
"Our country bans guns." The reality is that the UK does not ban guns. The only country that near-universally bans guns is Japan. And, it has a police state to enforce it. The UK -- like many US states -- does allow for gun ownership for sporting purposes, just like many US states. I believe this includes some semiautomatic weapons.
I might also point out that people dont' know what "semi-automatic" means, or what it's advantages would be in hunting vs non-automatic weapons. And that those advantages are legitimate for the purpose of the activity -- so why limit access just because you don't know what the technology is? It seems to me that's how people 'see' it.
I've watched the videos of K9 units. A German shepherd will chase them off a bridge and give their life to defend a person. German shepherds are also excellent baby sitters.
I have a whole house electronic security system which has never been armed during the 17 years since we built the house. Our dogs, a husky/shepherd mix and a min pin, are much better deterrents.
If the population you were detering was reasonable - or rational. In this case it isn't.
And back to my point, even for someone rationally considering such an act, unless school staffs are beefed up to a level of "combat readiness", or hires special staff, I don't think the guns will make a lot of difference to them.
I don't think you can ever deter someone who has that kind of violence in mind. If you secure the schools then they will just go elsewhere. Too many public places - many open like zoos and parks and grandstands at sports events - to have that level of protection everywhere. it;s impossible. I'm in a very large and crowded public library right now. Someone could open fire easily. You can't protect every place. A determined shooter will go where ever there are (seemingly) unarmed and helpless people gathered in a public place. Can't stop it by locking down everything and having marksman and barbed wire fence and guard dogs at every public place.
My friend (who hunts) is also a Watch DOG at his kids' schools. Watch DOGS are Dads of Great Students (http://www.fathers.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=60). From the site:
The WATCH D.O.G.S. program was inspired by a school shooting in Jonesboro, Arkansas in 1998 but it does not pretend to be a deterrent to an act so monstrous that it defies comprehension. The WATCH D.O.G.S. program stands as a testimony to the millions of moms and dads and educators that form partnerships within their communities, and across this great country of ours, in order to provide the very best educational environment possible for all of our nation’s children.
And here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpQPj4678us) of them in action.
If the population you were detering was reasonable - or rational. In this case it isn't.
And back to my point, even for someone rationally considering such an act, unless school staffs are beefed up to a level of "combat readiness", or hires special staff, I don't think the guns will make a lot of difference to them.
That's what I don't get. I guess the entire adult population could be armed, trained, re-trained to keep up readiness--kind of like a massive National Guard (or like Switzerland). We could all be on constant alert for that rare, random, armed crazy who might spring upon the scene. Then we can only hope our reflexes are sharp enough, our nerves are steady, and our aim is true and that no innocent victims stumble into our line of fire. Nothing like an occasional wild shootout in the public square to instill a sense of safety and tranquility in the citizenry.
I have a whole house electronic security system which has never been armed during the 17 years since we built the house. Our dogs, a husky/shepherd mix and a min pin, are much better deterrents.
I've had Newfs before - great deterrent unless you actually know the breed :-) The bark at the doorbell would scare anyone - but if you walked straight into the house they'd just stand there with their tails wagging :-)
OTOH - my ex was out walking them once and was crossly talked to by some other woman. That growl was scary and meant business.
Rare and Random is the key word jane. How many people around you or me in a public place are armed at any given time? How many years have those people been armed in public places? How often have "wild shoot outs" happened that they have been part of? Probably none. Never in my case in 35 or so years of carrying a firearm privately (i.e. non work related). Probably be another 35 years where I will never be involved with a wild shoot out. And even if I was, I guess I'd rather have that random possibility happen then see 20 children and 8 adults dead if I was in a position to stop it or lessen it.
Now it's time to go on vacation and not think about anything except how great Sven, the hunking ski patrol guy, looks in his tight stretchy pants and ski sweater :-)! Have a nice holiday everyone and try to enjoy it if you can despite this horrorible shooting.
That's what I don't get. I guess the entire adult population could be armed, trained, re-trained to keep up readiness--kind of like a massive National Guard (or like Switzerland). We could all be on constant alert for that rare, random, armed crazy who might spring upon the scene. Then we can only hope our reflexes are sharp enough, our nerves are steady, and our aim is true and that no innocent victims stumble into our line of fire. Nothing like an occasional wild shootout in the public square to instill a sense of safety and tranquility in the citizenry.
That could get quite crazy, though. When the issue is "someone has a gun", what happens when all these people start pulling guns? You see someone get shot, see the gunner and shoot them. Only they were just someone else taking out their gun. And then of course since you just shot, you must be the shooter and others will take "appropriate" action. And then when the police show up and see five people with guns and they know any of those could just start firing, the only really safe course of action is shoot all of them.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-12, 6:46pm
Also if the point is stopping psycho killer why does everyone even need to be armed with guns? Would everyone having a taser accomplish the same thing? (not that I particular want to turn schools into taser zones, what could go wrong there? Oh how about everything. But I'm just contrasting with guns here and the potential dangers of missed shots etc.).
sweetana3
12-15-12, 6:59pm
Awakenedsoul
Guard dogs require trained handlers and both are expensive. Guard dogs are also not quite as on and off as the media would have us believe. They also need to work and cannot just hang out and remain fit for their duty.
Might work if they were trained as sheparding dogs, rather than guard dogs, and thus the kids would be their 'flock' and they would function as protectors/alarms.
And, it could be managed through willing parents who train their dogs that way. That is, the family dog trained to do certain activities. :)
I love the Norwegian Elkhound, who looks like a short shepard, is also a great sheparding dog. They are smaller than germans, and tend to a more even temperament in general (more easy-going).
I would be happy to take the elkhound to school (if I had one) to help out. the dog could go with Dad. Or for that matter, with the kid -- as he'll be trained in how to manage the dog when we get one. (He'll do shepard and agility treaining with the dog.).
The dogs would be the first ones shot.
Apparently the Oregon shopping mall shooting wasn't worse because a man with a CCW permit drew his own gun (while the shooter was clearing a jam), and when the shooter saw it, decided to commit suicide, rather than shooting more people. I'll admit the below story is badly written.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
This gives some better detail:
http://easybakegunclub.com/news/1943/Clackamas-Mall-Shooter-Was-Confonted-By-Concealed-.html
CCW permit holder just had to draw his weapon. He wasn't sure of a clear shot without the chance of hitting someone else, so he didn't fire.
mamalatte
12-15-12, 8:03pm
If you arm more people, such as some of the people inside schools or those who go to shopping malls or movies, what makes you think all of those people are going to stay sane and safe? Who is to say that occasionally one of those people (or someone else who can get to their gun), is not going to lose it and kill a whole bunch of people? Until this happened, Lanza (or his mother) was just a law-abiding gun owner with weapons for self-defense, home defense, target shooting, or whatever; they fit the very profile of the gun owner/carrier many suggest we need more of.
To me it seems a far greater danger to have one or more people with a gun in every school every day than to take the risk that there will be no guns there on the unbelievably rare (yet incredibly tragic) day when something like this shooting happens. Not to mention the inevitable "accidents" due to improper storage or handling of the weapon etc. etc.
iris lily
12-15-12, 8:09pm
I have a whole house electronic security system which has never been armed during the 17 years since we built the house. Our dogs, a husky/shepherd mix and a min pin, are much better deterrents.
Our dogs were useless--USELSSS! when the prep broke into our house to steal the tv. Yet another reason to send them packing back to France.
I was just at a community musical event in our village. Attendance was roughly 275 people. Plus the 30ish people up on the stage performing.
I am morally certain at least 6 members of the audience were legally armed. And two members of the band.
There were no shootings. The audience sing-along portion of the evening was a bit alarming however, there should definitely be a background check and waiting period before any civilian is allowed to sing in public, especially in a crowded setting.
Other than that, Zoebird pretty well captures my take on the issues.
awakenedsoul
12-15-12, 9:52pm
I have a whole house electronic security system which has never been armed during the 17 years since we built the house. Our dogs, a husky/shepherd mix and a min pin, are much better deterrents.
I heard my next door neighbor talking to a drug dealer (meth) late one night. I could tell he was trying to set something up. I heard the dealer say, "No, I don't want to do it. Her window's open, and that dog is there." I've also this neighbor warning all the service people, (meter readers) "Be careful, she's got dogs back there." This is somebody who has a very slick criminal history. He doesn't get caught. He sets up other people and many of them have gone to jail.
This boy was wearing a bullet proof vest. To me it also seems like he wanted that control. He was going to decide when he died. He was very prepared. I also wonder if his mother got the guns to defend herself against him. I've heard of other instances where a single woman has a gun for protection and then the intruder used it on her.
The woman across the street from me told me that you can't see my German shepherd when you walk by. I watched her. She lays down and hides behind the pomegranate and lemon trees. She can see them, but they can't see her. Shepherds are smarter than most people. Nothing gets by her.
If dogs act as deterrents in general, then it functions. If they are the first to be shot -- better my dog and me than my kid.
Well, that would expand the potential victim pool. Personally, I'd rather restrict it than expand it.
In addition to being armed, what do you suggest would "restrict the victim pool"? I wonder about gun safety in general as a part of that equation.
I had an aha this evening. This stance of self-protection seems to me to be a highly & exclusively individulistic one. I am primarily community focused. My beliefs & actions are grounded in what I believe best serves the larger community, not what best serves me alone.
This mirrors my core values and beliefs that we are a congregate species, deeply interdependent upon each other, and that we each do better when we all do better. I wonder where common ground is between these two worldviews?
gun safety training would be great.
Mental illness & violence... Read this blog entry.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
catherine
12-16-12, 8:03am
Mental illness & violence... Read this blog entry.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
Wow. That was powerful.
I've often thought that perhaps it's time to reinvent the old institutions rather than eliminate them. I've thought of that in both the context of orphanages, for which I don't think foster care is always a good replacement and also institutions for the mentally ill.
When I did a study on schizophrenia last year, we spoke with 40 psychiatrists. One of them was director of a state-run hospital that still had the old inpatient buildings on the campus, even though they had been shut down. They were decrepit, and decaying. But the doctor said that the "clients" (i.e. patients) didn't want them to be torn down because they represented home in some ways. Now I'm sure they weren't mom-and-apple-pie home, but they represented some sense of stability and security even for the clients.
They go out into the community at which point getting patients to be compliant with meds is a huge challenge for the healthcare system. They have to literally hunt them down at their homes sometimes, or the clients just get lost to treatment. There are transportation issues, psychological issues with no one telling them they when, how and why they need to take their medication. Or they fall between the cracks from the time they leave a hospital after an acute episode to the time they should be integrated into the community health care system.
In India, there is no inpatient care, but the family support network makes up for it. Even though there's some stigma around mental illness, the family bands together to help each other. That's the second leg of the stool that's been lost in our capacity to deal with mental illness. Mothers like Adam Lanza's mother are left to do this all on their own. An impossible task.
awakenedsoul
12-16-12, 10:17am
If dogs act as deterrents in general, then it functions. If they are the first to be shot -- better my dog and me than my kid.
The thing I've noticed with my dogs is that they can anticipate the danger in advance. They will react just to the sound of a truck driving by, if the driver is, (or could be,) a threat. I've also noticed that men who commit these crimes have a primal reaction to a protective, aggressive dog. It throws them off. If you think about it, they choose places where they are safe. (like a kindergarten classroom with a woman principal.)
He sounds like a master manipulator to me. Especially when I heard that he had his brother's i.d. It really reminds me of 9/11. (The staging and theatricality.)
The 2nd amendment is not worth the lives of 18 children.
Which amendment is worth the lives of 18 children?
Mental illness & violence... Read this blog entry.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
Thanks for posting. I know that people with mental illness also despair of the connection between violence and their illness, because it makes others that much more afraid of them and to stereotype them.
At the same time, this mother's true story of her son's behavior reinforces those beliefs.
I sometimes wish that if we could harness our combined money and knowledge and logistics that we use for military purposes and redirect all that to finding a cause and treatment for the mentally ill, our society would finally start to see much less of these random acts of violence.
Miss Cellane
12-16-12, 11:05am
You know, almost every single description of the killer I've heard so far could have been me in middle and high school, except that I am female.
A loner, very few friends, sometimes no friends, painfully shy, introverted, smart, awkward with other people. Afraid to be spoken to by other students in the hallways between classes. I didn't clutch a laptop, but I was always reading a book. I didn't have a black briefcase, but my mother chose all my clothes and did not approve of current fashions (I was not allowed to wear pants to school in the 60s and 70s) so I just looked different from all the other students.
I'm not autistic. I do not have Asperger's. I have no inclination to kill people.
I am introverted. I am shy. It took me a long time to learn how to interact with others--a military childhood with constant moving did not help that at all. Even today I do not have a lot of friends, but the few friends I have are good, close friends. I do have some degree of social anxiety, but I have learned to manage it.
I am very concerned about all the calls we are hearing after the shooting to treat the mentally ill, followed by a list of the killer being a loner, friendless, aloof. There are many, many people who are loners with few friends who have no developmental delays, who are not mentally ill, who are not going to open fire with a gun in a public space.
It is hard enough in US society, where "the team" is the goal for everyone--you need to make the team, you need to be a good team player--to be a loner. Loners already stick out from the herd. What I'm hearing over the past few days seems to equate "loner" with mentally ill. That's a scary thing to hear for someone like me.
There was one interview by Anderson Cooper, who interviewed a woman who had done research on school shootings in the US since the 1970s. She referred to the shooters not as loners, but as "failed joiners." Kids who had tried and tried and tried to fit in, but were rejected by their larger social group. I think that's a better description and a safer one.
I would hate to see kids forced into therapy for wanting to be alone sometimes. Or put on medication because they prefer their own company to that of others. That's not mental illness. That's knowing and accepting who and what you are.
I would like to see help for the kids who want to fit in, but don't know how. Maybe there's a way to teach them some of the lessons on fitting in that it took me a couple of decades to learn. Speeding up the process would help them a lot.
But I'm afraid of a witch hunt atmosphere, where every kid who doesn't fit in to some idealized pattern of behavior is evaluated and poked and prodded and possibly medicated just because they are different. Life was hard enough in school without people suspecting me of being mentally ill.
Even introverts can learn to fit in. My last job, we all had to take the Myers-Briggs evaluation. Just as every other time I've taken it, I came out very strongly introverted. Most of my colleagues didn't believe that, because I've learned how to act extroverted. I can blend in. But it comes at a price. I stagger home from work some days so exhausted from just dealing with people that I can't do anything more than eat dinner and fall into bed. My life would be easier if I could be myself most of the time, instead of having to expend energy to meet an arbitrary social appearance.
I'm not even sure why I'm writing this, except that hearing all the talk about more treatment for the mentally ill, and then hearing what was a description of me in high school seemed to hit home and hit hard. It has been troubling me in a way I can't define. And it scares me.
JaneV2.0
12-16-12, 11:42am
Brilliantly put, Miss Cellane. I was thinking along those lines "Oh, here we go again with the smart, quiet, scary loner." I was more social in school, so wouldn't have raised concerns. Interestingly, when we took Myers-Briggs at work, the few women in my group all tested introvert. My "brand" was INTJ, which one resource identified as 1% of the female population.
Cellane - the concen you express for introverts, is the concern I have for the mentally ill. As I mentioned part way thru this discussion, most mentally ill people are not violent. It's the personality disordered ones that are most dangerous (and usually only the cluster B part of the axis 2 diagnoses ... Clusters A and C are usually nonviolent).
In fact, the classically mentally ill (bipolar, schizophrenia, depression) are victims more often than anything else.
ApatheticNoMore
12-16-12, 12:51pm
I think: people with Aspergers are going to be blamed hard :(. And what are there going to be seperate gun laws for Asperger's folks compared to non-Aspergers people now? By broad descriptions you could fit me in there, things like overwhelmed by excessive external stimulation. I dont like it. However on any actual psyche test for such, I am not at all. Am of course introvert though.
My "brand" was INTJ, which one resource identified as 1% of the female population.
INTP, like I am, is not a very common a female type either (introverts are less common than extroverts, N's are not that common, and it seems to me most females or at least most introvert females are Fs). Why it's uncommon enough and makes one feel different enough one could start inaccurately diagnosing oneself with Aspergers and stuff!
iris lily
12-16-12, 12:52pm
Which amendment is worth the lives of 18 children?
When I think of the sacrifices of life, limb and family that our founding fathers made, I am certain that they would disagree with freein05 as well. I'll bet, without goggling history, that at least one of their children died in or as a result of that conflict.
iris lily
12-16-12, 1:02pm
...There was one interview by Anderson Cooper, who interviewed a woman who had done research on school shootings in the US since the 1970s. She referred to the shooters not as loners, but as "failed joiners." Kids who had tried and tried and tried to fit in, but were rejected by their larger social group. I think that's a better description and a safer one...
I don't know of the majority, but I know that Eric Harris was reasonably well assimilated into social activities: he had a job, had been known to date, etc. He was a psychopath, that whole storyline about him being rejected by jocks was faux.
Oddly, perhaps unfortunately, I had just watched We Need to Talk About Kevin on Monday night of this week. That is a theatrical film about one of these psychopaths, his family, The Event, and the aftermath. To pretend that it sheds light on the Newtown killer is bogus, but still, fiction can be brilliant at illuminating an element of the human condition, and this film was already in my head this week when Friday's even occurred. The mother in this film knew something was wrong with Kevin and was powerless to stop it, he was far too cunning.
I think that there are people who walk amongst us who are--evil. That is a simplistic word to use, but it's apt.
When I think of the sacrifices of life, limb and family that our founding fathers made, I am certain that they would disagree with freein05 as well. I'll bet, without goggling history, that at least one of their children died in or as a result of that conflict.
The founders fathers wrote a constitution that has lasted for a very long time and for the most part works very good today. I am one of those who feel the founding fathers wrote a living constitution because they knew that the United States would be a different place in 200 years. The type of firearms used during their time were muskets that fired 1 shot and took about 30 seconds to 1 minute to reload if you were good and you could not conceal them. I also believe the 2nd amendment was not written for the individual but for state militias.
Firearms we have today can fire 100s of rounds a minute. There are pistols with 30 round magazines that can fire the 30 rounds in seconds. The population of the US when the constitution written was about 2.5 million. Today the population is over 300 million. Many things have changed since 1776
The founders fathers wrote a constitution that has lasted for a very long time and for the most part works very good today. I am one of those who feel the founding fathers wrote a living constitution because they knew that the United States would be a different place in 200 years....
Yeah, it is ironic how the constitution seems to be viewed as some sort of divinely inspired word to not be challenged. This is not what some of the the framers had in mind...
"There have been many proposals for substantial change to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html
Yeah, it is ironic how the constitution seems to be viewed as some sort of divinely inspired word to not be challenged. This is not what some of the the framers had in mind...
"There have been many proposals for substantial change to the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html
But it's not so inviolate when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. Can you imagine what the Founders would have thought of porno scanners or Carnivore?
SteveinMN
12-16-12, 1:54pm
Yeah, it is ironic how the constitution seems to be viewed as some sort of divinely inspired word to not be challenged. This is not what some of the the framers had in mind...
There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution since the 1780s. Amendments have to pass a high bar to be ratified, but they can pass it if enough people want it.
Thomas Jefferson himself was wary of the power of the dead over the living in the form of an unchanging Constitution. To ensure that each generation have a say in the framework of the government, he proposed that the Constitution, and each one following it, expire after 19 or 20 years."
Given the current political climate, I would hate to see something like this enacted. If a new Constitution was not agreed upon, would the default be for the old one to perpetuate? Or would we face a "judicial cliff"?
There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution since the 1780s. Amendments have to pass a high bar to be ratified, but they can pass it if enough people want it.
Given the current political climate, I would hate to see something like this enacted. If a new Constitution was not agreed upon, would the default be for the old one to perpetuate? Or would we face a "judicial cliff"?
Actually the current political climate itself might be enough evidence to suppose a revised constitution. Some thing in our congress and our election process and maybe out tax process just doesn't seem to be working and might indicate the need for some revolutionary changes. Like the article says, amendments are intended as small evolutionary changes, but not truly defining like the constitution. I sometimes think what might have happened if the electoral vote would have gone one way and the popular voted the other in the recent election.
The founders fathers wrote a constitution that has lasted for a very long time and for the most part works very good today. I am one of those who feel the founding fathers wrote a living constitution because they knew that the United States would be a different place in 200 years.
I would suggest that the constitution is a living document as it provides a method for amendment. I would also suggest that, as written, it is a constitution of affirmative, rather than negative, rights for the individual, while limiting governmental intrusion. Do you really want to reverse that?
ApatheticNoMore
12-16-12, 3:07pm
Yea but the bill of rights is for the most part not the problem (with the caveat that money does not equal speech because *that* is a problem). If I could magically change the constitution by a dictatorial wave of the wand, well after making sure money was out of politics, I'd want something that would break or seriously hamper the two party system. It has got to go. If the goverment is supposed to represent us we need a chance to vote for people who actually at least somewhat represent us, not just the lesser of two evils. We need a way for third parties to have a voice. Proportional represenation?
I sometimes think what might have happened if the electoral vote would have gone one way and the popular voted the other in the recent election.
Yea I know this is a popular thing to pick on, but with the current Presidential election the way it is (billion dollar candidates), that victory would be only one of some pure abstract principle, I can't see any ACTUAL good coming out of it. In fact it would just mean the entire country would be subject to swing state treatment! That's aweful. It's not just aweful because it's unpleasant, although most swing staters attest so! It is unpleasant. But subjecting the entire country to the level of propaganda that is needed to elect someone to the highest office is pernicious, is bad, in and of itself (and by the way with the money in the political process that propaganda IS the voice of money! the interest it ultimately represents is plutocratic).
Yeah, it is ironic how the constitution seems to be viewed as some sort of divinely inspired word to not be challenged. This is not what some of the the framers had in mind...
Defending the bill of rights in the current political context is rational. The founders were hypocrites if they expected the bill of rights to be overthrown every 20 years. How do I know this? Because certain rights like due process date back at least to the Magna Carta. They still thought principles hundreds of years old had value! They themselves were not inventing whole new alternatives to due process out of whole cloth. Other stuff, maybe, laws in general are not unchanging, but some of those basics are ages old. But we have a government now that doesn't want to respect due process. What are we to do? Even *if* one wanted a dictatorship, it's obvious enough that this dictatorship is going to be one of the plutocrats (certainly not the proletariat), who could want to live under plutocrat dicatorship? (except a corrupt plutocrat). Defending the bill of rights in the current political context is *rational*.
ANM, I like some of your ideas. Like keeping money out of politics and a better system than our current two party method. I would like to see all national primaries open to registered voters of all parties, a review of presidential term limits...maybe one term of six years, and the ability for voters to dissolve congress and demand a re-election of all new members based on a majority vote. As a few on short notice. I'd like to see the whole tax code white boarded and started anew, which probably isn't all a constitution item.
Pure pontification I suppose, as it's not going to happen.
SteveinMN
12-16-12, 4:34pm
Provocative quote I saw on twitter today re: Newtown:
"If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started."
The person who said this has a reputation for being rather polarizing, so I don't want to cloud the message by mentioning his/her name here. Agree or disagree on the merits of the statement itself, not the originator. Anyone sufficiently interested can search on twitter and find out who said it.
His mother was well armed and knew how to use firearms and it did her no good.
I would add to the debate about the constitution that the Supreme Court is now the body in our government that makes changes to the Constitution. The court by it's rulings decides on what the the Constitution means and in doing so does modify it. The reason for this is it is too difficult to make amendments to it. In today's political climate it would be impossible to make a change so the Supreme Court does by it's rulings.
Letting nine unelected judges make such important changes is not a good method to modify the Constitution. They are appointed by the president and approve by the senate. So which ever party in power appoints judges that will be favorable to their ideology. With our current two party system I do not fell this is good for the country. Somehow we need to move away from the two party system. A parliamentary system of government seems to be a better system. It represents more people in a society.
On NBC news an FBI person just said that on average there are 20 mass shooting a year in the US and that is a 20 year average. Yes I know guns don't kill people do. If there were fewer guns in the hands of nuts there would fewer mass killings.
Guns are not the problem. Mental illness is.
These reports are from China.
In 2008 On March 23, 2010, eigth children were stabbed to death in an elementary school.
In April of 2010 another knife-wielding man wounded 16 students and a teacher at a primary school.
On April 29 at a Kindergarten, 28 students, two teachers and one security guard were stabbed. Most of the students were 4 years old.
On April 30, an assailant used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children and then used gasoline to commit suicide.
In May of 2010
An attacker killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten
On 4 August 2010 slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a Kindergarten.
Eight children, all aged four or five, were hurt when an employee at a child-care centre for migrant workers slashed them with a box cutter.
On December 14th 2012 22 students were stabbed in an attack at another elementary school in China.
gimmethesimplelife
12-16-12, 5:14pm
So, what I am left wondering is - what can realistically be done to prevent this from reoccuring, or is risk to this the "new normal" we need to adapt to for numerous reasons? Rob
So, what I am left wondering is - what can realistically be done to prevent this from reoccuring, or is risk to this the "new normal" we need to adapt to for numerous reasons? Rob
Rob - I'm not sure there *is* anything you can really do to *prevent* the occasional madman from causing great harm to others. You can of course take a wide range of steps to *reduce* the risk. I realize there is a desire to leap to "doing something NOW", but you need to look at the cost and side effects of those steps, and weigh them against the actual effectiveness.
I'm also not sure this is "the new normal", except in the sense that we now have breathless 24x7 media coverage of such things. We've had incidents like this for ages. Statistically, sometimes you will get a "run" of events that lead you to think there is a significant difference occurring, but be careful of your analysis, the human mind is easily fooled into seeing patterns in noise:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Run.html
SteveinMN
12-16-12, 9:00pm
I'm also not sure this is "the new normal", except in the sense that we now have breathless 24x7 media coverage of such things. We've had incidents like this for ages.
^^^^ THIS. Fear and blood sells, so we get a lot of it.
When I heard about Sandy Hook, I turned on the TV. Every network was covering the event non-stop. It's a sensational story; I understand. Unfolding news stories are prone to lots of misinformation early on; I get that, too. News-gathering organizations should be on-site, covering what's going on. But beyond the people of Newtown, I wonder what value there was to the rest of the country in hearing all the changing information (shooter's name, number of dead and wounded,...) and rerunning the same loops of kids being led away from the school and emergency personnel flanking the building. Break in, do the special report, urge people to tune in later, get your facts straight, and be done -- unless you broadcast to Connecticut, in which case there can be value to wading through the changing information.
I would love to see an end to the "news" reports that serve only to instill fear. "Is your child at risk of being shot at school? Details at 10!" "Your children run to the ice-cream truck when they hear the bells. But who is driving those trucks in your neighborhood? Our special investigative report tomorrow at 6."
The need to sell time and be heard is ruining American news. And I say this as someone who got a degree in journalism.
The need to sell time and be heard is ruining American news.
Our local school districts, here on these remote islands, before the blood was even dry in Connecticut, all sent out notes to parents telling them of the tragedy, of the many security-theater steps being taken here to avoid that sort of thing in our schools, and telling us of all the wonderful counseling services that will be available in the next weeks to help shaken-up children in our community who are worried about the incident.
Which made me sick to my stomach.
^^^^ THIS. Fear and blood sells, so we get a lot of it.
When I heard about Sandy Hook, I turned on the TV. Every network was covering the event non-stop. It's a sensational story; I understand. Unfolding news stories are prone to lots of misinformation early on; I get that, too. News-gathering organizations should be on-site, covering what's going on. But beyond the people of Newtown, I wonder what value there was to the rest of the country in hearing all the changing information (shooter's name, number of dead and wounded,...) and rerunning the same loops of kids being led away from the school and emergency personnel flanking the building. Break in, do the special report, urge people to tune in later, get your facts straight, and be done -- unless you broadcast to Connecticut, in which case there can be value to wading through the changing information.
I would love to see an end to the "news" reports that serve only to instill fear. "Is your child at risk of being shot at school? Details at 10!" "Your children run to the ice-cream truck when they hear the bells. But who is driving those trucks in your neighborhood? Our special investigative report tomorrow at 6."
The need to sell time and be heard is ruining American news. And I say this as someone who got a degree in journalism.
I've got a journalism degree as well, and spent 18 months as a small-town reporter 20 something years ago - covering police and fire (which I frankly loved).
I'm TV-free, but almost always have a local AM talk station (all local talent, none of the syndicated crap) or AM all-news station on. Aside from some pictures in the NY Times (I have a digital subscription), I've only read or heard about this on the radio. Yes, I had the radio on all day at work Friday (as I always do), but it's quite different than having the TV on. It's really an old-fashioned way of getting my news that contributes to a different take, but I can't quite find the words to explain the difference. I know way too many people who think I'm unable to get the "full story" because I don't *watch* the news. I find it takes the sensationalism out of the whole thing, but I still get plenty of info.
Text of Obama's speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-speech-at-prayer-vigil-for-newtown-shooting-victims-full-transcript/2012/12/16/f764bf8a-47dd-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
Our local school districts, here on these remote islands, before the blood was even dry in Connecticut, all sent out notes to parents telling them of the tragedy, of the many security-theater steps being taken here to avoid that sort of thing in our schools, and telling us of all the wonderful counseling services that will be available in the next weeks to help shaken-up children in our community who are worried about the incident.
Which made me sick to my stomach.
Before the blood was dry? It was a Friday, my dear! Not much time to get a note together... I imagine kids are worried about this. It makes me sick, too... At least the Islands are a contned community.
Hugs.
So, what I am left wondering is - what can realistically be done to prevent this from reoccuring, or is risk to this the "new normal" we need to adapt to for numerous reasons? Rob
I'm hoping under Obamacare at least some kids that did not have economically viable access to mental health care services will.
gimmethesimplelife
12-17-12, 1:35am
I'm hoping under Obamacare at least some kids that did not have economically viable access to mental health care services will.I second that. So at least there's some hope there starting in 2014 - if we can get some of these kids to accept and cooperate with the help. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 2:08am
If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.
So a mother shooting her own son is not considered as most likely requiring mental illness on her part to go through with itself? That is the absurdity of exactly what is being suggested in this statement. That "oh she should have just shot her son, perfectly normal suggestion". Like the person suggesting it has watched too many movies and crime shows or something (because I don't really know anything about what the mother/son relationships was, but that response sounds more like a Hollywood plot than anything). Step away from the t.v., step away from the t.v. ......
When I heard about Sandy Hook, I turned on the TV. Every network was covering the event non-stop. It's a sensational story; I understand. Unfolding news stories are prone to lots of misinformation early on; I get that, too.
Actually I only caught it on t.v. a bit Sat night. The journalism (and I do mean the basic journalism part, fact checking) was of utterly shoddy quality. The mother did and then didn't work for the school. Whether someone works somewhere, doesn't seem to me like a very hard thing to fact check. And that's what I with no jouralism credentials say. Shoddy.
News-gathering organizations should be on-site, covering what's going on. But beyond the people of Newtown, I wonder what value there was to the rest of the country in hearing all the changing information (shooter's name, number of dead and wounded,...) and rerunning the same loops of kids being led away from the school and emergency personnel flanking the building. Break in, do the special report, urge people to tune in later, get your facts straight, and be done -- unless you broadcast to Connecticut, in which case there can be value to wading through the changing information.
+1 Yea if I lived near there it might be all I would want to hear. But agree on the rest of the country that doesn't live there, round and round and round even days after, what's the point? This *can't* be culturally healthy, it just can't.
I would love to see an end to the "news" reports that serve only to instill fear. "Is your child at risk of being shot at school? Details at 10!" "Your children run to the ice-cream truck when they hear the bells. But who is driving those trucks in your neighborhood? Our special investigative report tomorrow at 6."
+1
The need to sell time and be heard is ruining American news. And I say this as someone who got a degree in journalism.
Yea, and I can't help thinking ok what else is going on in the world? What else is going on in the world that you are not covering, I'm sure there are many other horrible things (sadly this is no doubt true). And I have really dark thoughts like: I bet someone on the east coast is dying right now for lack of electricity (an elderly person) due to that other Sandy and power never having been restored and it's not being reported. Yea my thoughts run pretty dark.
I'm TV-free, but almost always have a local AM talk station (all local talent, none of the syndicated crap) or AM all-news station on. Aside from some pictures in the NY Times (I have a digital subscription), I've only read or heard about this on the radio. Yes, I had the radio on all day at work Friday (as I always do), but it's quite different than having the TV on. It's really an old-fashioned way of getting my news that contributes to a different take, but I can't quite find the words to explain the difference. I know way too many people who think I'm unable to get the "full story" because I don't *watch* the news. I find it takes the sensationalism out of the whole thing, but I still get plenty of info.
Agree with this, I get news from the 'net and from the paper. I quite frankly think it's less easy to propagandize by means of just the written word. Not that you can't try, you can still use techniques of leaving out information, or just plain lying, but just the written word lends itself more to analysis of what is said (however slanted or even dishonest it may be) than words and images that are there and gone. Written world propaganda maybe has to do with frames and what is ommitted and included, which is sufficient. But transitory, multiple sensory media, can work on a lot more subtle and less conscious modalities than that. Although I'm sure Erickson thought he could hypnotize with just the written word. Still there's a record. And this is where I get lost in paranoid conspiracy theory. Anyway people like Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death) were not paranoid at all and wrote a lot of commentary on the differences in different kinds of media in news, so might make an interesting read (or in my case a reread).
So a mother shooting her own son is not considered as most likely requiring mental illness on her part to go through with itself?
It depends on the situation, doesn't it? Perhaps you haven't had relatives who have posed a serious threat to your life, but I have, to the point where I had restraining orders, armed guards, and other precautions in place. The mental illness was on the part of the people threatening me and the rest of my family, not us - we were the victims of their issues.
Using force in legitimate self defense is not typically considered by most as requiring mental illness.
Yesterday, the shock of the event acted as a catalyst to help keep my emotions at bay, however, today, this morning, I'm angry. I'm not sure what disgusts me more, the shooter, who killed all those babies and people, or the president of the United States, and his crocodile tears and empty speech, AGAIN.
Real class act you've got going here attacking the President's appropriate response to a national tragedy that has brought "crocodile" tears to many of us. Are my tears crocodile tears?
Please do pick this fight here because I'm pretty ticked off at your gross insensitivity and Obama dereangment wending itself into even THIS conversation and would just live to pile on you wih how disgraceful that comment was.
Oh and all you folks yammering on about "soft targets,". Also way way classy as images of small soft bodies bleeding on the ground come into mind. Just cannot wrap my mind around how the conversation in every single case inevitably devolves into a prescription to turn our entire populace into one big army with every doctor and nurse and teacher and retail clerk and so forth packing heat. Well I guess we should be grateful at least that the 5 year old kids weren't called sheep for falling to resist properly. When is the brigjt line for that? Middle school, high school and of course we know from V Tech that 18 & 19 year olds in college should have lunged a that shooter instead of allowing themselves to be mowed down like sheep, which I guess really worked out well for the 6 adults killed at Sandy Hook. Don't think for one moment I ever forgot the depths of your heartless victim blaming in so many of these cases.
I have had a gun in my face and yet I don't need or want a gun. Ever. And look how much good all her guns did for her, the shooter's mom.
We need much tighter restrictions and controls on guns. We need universal health care and a commitment to identify mental illness and emotional problems and family problems and make help available even if that means we have to pay more taxes. We need stronger security measures for public places. We need less anger, division, heat altogether, more compassion. We need to convene a national commission to explore all these issues and come up with some recommendations.
As in Dublane. And screw the NRA. I don't care about the freaking gun industry any more than I do about the tobacco industry. They get not a single place at the table. Nor Alec. Since stand your ground laws are turning into a license to
Hunt down and kill young unarmed
Black men.
We have a lot of work to do.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 3:38am
Using force in legitimate self defense is not typically considered by most as requiring mental illness.
Yea but the mother child bond usually runs a lot deeper than that, I don't think most mothers ever could.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 4:41am
We need less anger, division, heat altogether, more compassion.
Well your post picking on posters for lacking class, making fighting statements ("please do pick this fight here"), etc. IS probably a really excellent counterexample.
Me personally I don't have any problem with criticizing the powerful very hard. They have power, and power is often a horrible ghastly thing (though of course it is not always used for ill), we just have our words. But people posting in threads should probalby not be treated that way.
Never mind how Mrs M is really the wrong target anyway, better to pick a fight with me. As I actually REALLY AM *NOT* *OK* with Obama. Many of his policies depress and sicken me incredibly. I've said as much in this very thread. Maybe you've saved yourself the trouble and have already blocked me and can only go after Mrs M ....
Oh and all you folks yammering on about "soft targets,". Also way way classy as images of small soft bodies bleeding on the ground come into mind. Just cannot wrap my mind around how the conversation in every single case inevitably devolves into a prescription to turn our entire populace into one big army with every doctor and nurse and teacher and retail clerk and so forth packing heat.
A "soft target" is by definition a person, place or thing that is relatively unprotected or vulnerable, esp. to military or terrorist attack. The school itself and the students were indeed "soft targets".
If you think anyone advocates turning "our entire populace into one big army with every doctor and nurse and teacher and retail clerk and so forth packing heat", you're guilty of exaggeration. Speaking for myself, and possibly others you may be directing your anger to, I think it's safe to say that we'd be happy if we simply didn't criminalize effective self defense.
Speaking for myself, and possibly others you may be directing your anger to, I think it's safe to say that we'd be happy if we simply didn't criminalize effective self defense.
I am interested in data that supports the effectiveness of gun based self defense. The data I have read in the past supports the stance that guns are ineffective in personal self-defense.
SteveinMN
12-17-12, 8:28am
If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.
So a mother shooting her own son is not considered as most likely requiring mental illness on her part to go through with itself? That is the absurdity of exactly what is being suggested in this statement. That "oh she should have just shot her son, perfectly normal suggestion".
That was the point of my posting that. IMHO, it's an oversimplification to suggest that the solution to combating psychotic breaks like these is arming everyone indiscriminately. I'm sure comprehensive training would help, but in times of a crisis (of any type), people have highly-variable abililties to think quickly, calmly, and intelligently. I wouldn't put lots of money on the ability of most folks in such a situation to identify clearly the number of perpetrators and to aim and fire well enough to disable him/her/them (and not another Good Samaritan drawing his/her weapon). I happen to be a good shot at a target range; I don't know as I could be if the bullets were coming toward me and I don't suspect gun-safety and CCW classes teach one enough about that.
The journalism (and I do mean the basic journalism part, fact checking) was of utterly shoddy quality.
Once the dust (literally) settled, I think the quality of the fact reporting was fine. Newspapers (not newspaper Web sites, but newspapers) and TV/radio "recap" shows got the facts right as far as any of us know them at this point. The problem comes when the facts are not certain and dead air looms. Most people -- especially those who make their living telling people things right away -- are too scared of silence to let it be or admit they aren't sure. We see the same effects when election results are discussed and states are called with fractions of the vote reported.
Yea, and I can't help thinking ok what else is going on in the world? What else is going on in the world that you are not covering, I'm sure there are many other horrible things (sadly this is no doubt true).
The odd thing is that, in the 3-4 hours some people spent glued to the changing details and the endless video loops, there could have been a few comprehensive discussions of complicated issues that face the country and the world and, really, have a greater impact on our lives than this unfortunate event. Discuss the state of the U.S. educational system relative to the rest of the world. Or the costs and outcomes of the current U.S. health care system. Or the economically disadvantaged in Muslim countries. I'm convinced, though, that most people simply want to be told what to think about topics like that and don't have either the mental capacity or the attention span to sit through it long enough to forge their own considered opinions. (That's my dark thought.)
I am interested in data that supports the effectiveness of gun based self defense. The data I have read in the past supports the stance that guns are ineffective in personal self-defense.
It didn't appear to help the shooter's mother.
I am interested in data that supports the effectiveness of gun based self defense. The data I have read in the past supports the stance that guns are ineffective in personal self-defense.
I'd be interested in seeing some of that data, mainly to see the parameters of the "ineffective" claim. Such as, does the data suggest that guns are ineffective in personal self defense at the point of attack, or does it suggest that the presence of guns at a potential attack site fails to lessen the probability of attack?
If it was the latter, I'd be surprised.
gimmethesimplelife
12-17-12, 9:29am
You know, I just had what is for me a revolutionary thought. I was going to post here on what I think is broken with US society at some length - trust me I could go on and on and on about that topic and how I believe it applies to this tragedy when WHAM - I remembered the shooting in Norway not too long ago. And Norway is a country with high taxes and the social welfare state I so approve of - so maybe I need to go back to the drawing board for awhile. But at least I can admit that. I still agree with other posters that we need universal health care for universal access for all for mental health care (or be prepared to accept this tragedy as a risk of everyday life) but.....the problem there is that those who have such issues often are unwilling to accept treatment for them. I know this firsthand due to some mental illness on my father's side of the family. I don't know that there are any easy answers here but something is just not working somewhere.....Rob
I'd be interested in seeing some of that data, mainly to see the parameters of the "ineffective" claim. Such as, does the data suggest that guns are ineffective in personal self defense at the point of attack, or does it suggest that the presence of guns at a potential attack site fails to lessen the probability of attack? If it was the latter, I'd be surprised.
These were studies I read years ago. I may do some digging later this week. Do you have anything at hand to support your stance? I am open to objective information, despite my own dedication to nonviolence & the fact that I was raised by a conservative R father, from rural Wyoming, who, as an attorney, has held a firm gun control stance for decades based on data.
Here's a link to a wikipedia entry about 4 Police officers gunned down in a town south of Seattle, in 2009. It was horrific, and wracked our communites for months; the law enforcement community is still deeply affected. If these four highly trained, well armed people could not effectively respond to a lone, crazed shooter, I have no confidence that a citizen could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_shooting
gimmethesimplelife
12-17-12, 9:37am
Something else that I am not getting - why is the Constitution so sacred and holy? Seriously. Why is it so immune to change without massive and major struggle? I think of Iceland recently redoing theirs - and they seem to be doing ok overall since having a "makeover." Realistically I believe US society is so polarized that such is impossible here at least at this time - which is too bad as how can government be about we the people if there is such polarization and gridlock? Rob
ABC video testing the premise that the average citizen can use a gun for self defense.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8QjZY3WiO9s&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8QjZY3WiO9s%26feature%3 Dplayer_embedded
The ABC "experiment" was seriously biased and flawed, which is quite obvious if you look at it with a trained eye.
I have repeatedly posted data speaking to the effectiveness of firearms in self defense before on these forums, you can easily find it by searching. An interested person would have no trouble tracking down the information themselves.
I personally would likely be dead right now, had I not had access to firearms I time of need. That said, firearms are not magic talismans that somehow protect you from harm in all circumstances. The Seattle police slayings Redfox mentions are a demonstration of that - 4 armed, trained people sitting unalert at a booth in a restaurant can easily have some bad person walk up and kill them before they know what has happened. This doesn't mean their training and weapons are worthless, simply that in this particular case, it wasn't sufficient.
I am highly trained, and armed as I sit here typing this while eating my breakfast. Yet my wife is strong and quick, and has a cast iron frying pan in her hand as she is walking up to me with some eggs. She could probably slay me before I finish the next word, before I could blink an eye. Lucky for me, she's not that sort, and I remembered to make her coffee.
ABC video testing the premise that the average citizen can use a gun for self defense.
We expect people who drive a car to get training before they head out on their own. I don't see it as unreasonable to think a similar approach could be attached to gun ownership. The link didn't work for me so I'm just guessing it shows some kind of ineffective fumbling with a concealed weapon as a person is attacked. regardless, it pays to remember that there is no one size fits all solution. Nothing exists that will be effective in every situation. I can think of one thing that would be beneficial in ALMOST every situation...keeping your cool. Hard to politicize that one though.
All the recent shootings of this type have taken place within soft targets, movie theaters, shopping centers and schools, areas where law abiding citizens have been forbidden to possess their weapons. I suspect this is not coincidental.
No matter how you slice it this is the one element that gets repeated over and over. With what we can actually learn from media reports most of the shooters have been fairly methodical in their planning of these events and all have selected 'soft targets'. The reasons seem obvious enough, don't they?
Again, I say a big problem is that our individual rights in this country always trump the rights/welfare of the whole.
That, in a nutshell, is the delicate balancing act of living in the US (and certainly one of the things that makes governing here challenging). There are plenty of examples in history where individual rights were automatically made subordinate to the welfare of the whole. It is a much simpler approach and solves a lot of sticky issues, but I'm not sure most of us would be comfortable living in that situation.
This country is too big and complicated to catch all the potential murderers before they happen. We're out of control. Our values are askew.
There is nothing that can be done to catch every madman in every situation. It is simply impossible and people need to get past the denial so we can move on. I agree that our values are completely askew. This thread pretty much reflects the national debate. Almost all the effort is focused on gun control of one kind or the other. It is politically expedient and so makes sense in the public debate, but won't offer a cure. Very little discussion is focused on what could have been done to identify a threat from Adam Lanza or the other shooters before they carried out their crimes and what could have been done to help them. The answer very well may be that nothing could have been done, but that should not excuse us from our responsibility to our fellow citizens. If someone is hungry, we feed them. If they are sick, we treat them. That's how the people of the US work. I can't help but think that the stigma of mental illness vs. that of physical illness plays a significant role. There are lots of things we can do to identify and assist people with mental issues, but working to remove that stigma is (IMO) among the most important.
Do you have anything at hand to support your stance?
Only that a determined shooter is 100% effective against defenseless targets until such time as he decides to stop or is stopped.
Well your post picking on posters for lacking class, making fighting statements ("please do pick this fight here"), etc. IS probably a really excellent counterexample.
Me personally I don't have any problem with criticizing the powerful very hard. They have power, and power is often a horrible ghastly thing (though of course it is not always used for ill), we just have our words. But people posting in threads should probalby not be treated that way.
Never mind how Mrs M is really the wrong target anyway, better to pick a fight with me. As I actually REALLY AM *NOT* *OK* with Obama. Many of his policies depress and sicken me incredibly. I've said as much in this very thread. Maybe you've saved yourself the trouble and have already blocked me and can only go after Mrs M ....
Really? So chivalrous of you to defend the indefensile. At least you have a rational basis to criticize Obama based on his war policies. Mrs M criticizes him for breathing. For doing his job and speaking on this. It is irrational and unhelpful.
At least you have a rational basis to criticize Obama based on his war policies. Mrs M criticizes him for breathing.
I thought the President's speech on Friday was fine. People in this country were hurting and he is our leader so it is perfectly legit for him to address the nation. His speech was not overtly political and it did not appear he was doing anything more than trying to comfort people in an unthinkable situation. Beyond that, what could he say, what could anyone say? Everything that needs to be said at a time like that is going to sound a bit cliché, but that doesn't make it wrong.
I'm having trouble understanding what exactly it means to want to remove the stigma of mental illness. I know tons of people who struggle in one way or another........OCD, depression, bipolar, etc., etc. Lots of people I know are on antidepressants. Alot of people I know have needed counseling at one point or another. Just trying to understand what some of you mean about removing the stigma of mental illness.??
It sounds like it wasn't the system that let this shooter down, but rather his mother, who tried to cover it up.
Sincerely, I do want to understand what you mean.
And I think this country needs more than a bandaid of "removing the mental illness stigma". We're all a bit crazy because of the culture we live in. We live in a very unnatural way............not enough sleep, to much junk out there to think we need, poor nutrition, inferior way of growing foods, etc., etc., etc. I'm feeling pretty overwhelmed with it all.
gimmethesimplelife
12-17-12, 12:35pm
I'm having trouble understanding what exactly it means to want to remove the stigma of mental illness. I know tons of people who struggle in one way or another........OCD, depression, bipolar, etc., etc. Lots of people I know are on antidepressants. Alot of people I know have needed counseling at one point or another. Just trying to understand what some of you mean about removing the stigma of mental illness.??
It sounds like it wasn't the system that let this shooter down, but rather his mother, who tried to cover it up.
Sincerely, I do want to understand what you mean.
And I think this country needs more than a bandaid of "removing the mental illness stigma". We're all a bit crazy because of the culture we live in. We live in a very unnatural way............not enough sleep, to much junk out there to think we need, poor nutrition, inferior way of growing foods, etc., etc., etc. I'm feeling pretty overwhelmed with it all.I couldn't agree with you more on your last three sentences. I look around me and I consider the majority of what society has become to be quite toxic - I know there are more steps I can take to minimize the toxicity in my life - I will grant you this - but I often wonder would not myself and many others just be best served by bailing this society? Sometimes I just don't see how much can change short of economic collapse or something of such proportions that would effect all. On the other hand, there are some shining examples here of folks growing their own food, cutting their expenses down, and cutting societies B# out of their life as best they can. I am glad to be here as there is much here for someone of little faith like me to learn. Rob
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/
Apparently Connecticut was considering some changes to its mental health regulations.
freein05
12-17-12, 12:56pm
I was in a situation were being highly trained and armed would have done me no good. I was in a bank robbery. I was setting at my desk when three men came in with weapons drawn. One stood at the door with a shotgun, one went down the teller line pointing a 9 mm at the tellers and collecting money, the other came up to my desk and pointed a 9 mm at my head. All the firearms in the world and training would have did me no good. These robbers probably got there their fire arms from law abiding citizens in robberies. People who do own firearms should be required to have them securely locked up when they are not home.
Firearms are just to easy to obtain and many are in the hands of people who should not have them. The assault and high capacity clip restrictions being talked about also make since. Assault weapons are not the best home protection weapons and clips with more than 10 rounds in them are also not necessary. If you can not hit your attacker with 10 rounds another 20 wont help you. You need more training.
As has been said, Free, firearms aren't magic...
As to your understanding of "clips", the utility and nature of "assault weapons", the tactics involved in a confrontation, and the state of the art in modern training practices, I find you uninformed. I would be happy to point interested parties to quality training and educational programs.
William Bennett said something that I thought was pretty stupid on Meet the Press yesterday. He said he wouldn't object to having someone in all the schools armed.
Is this person going to sit at the front door with their gun aimed at the entrance? If not, who would get to use the gun? What if they weren't anywhere near where the gunman starts shooting? What if he shoots them first? I just thought this was a really ignorant thing for him to say.
Even if we had a trained officer at the door, whose to say he wouldn't be the first person shot?
Should the main level of schools have bullet-proof glass? Should all the doors and windows have bars?
I don't know what the answer is.
I know that when my children were younger, our jr-sr high school said that they had security measures. Well, my son forgot his books the night before finals, so DH went there.......walked right in the door, up to the second floor, got his books out of his locker and left........totally unobserved.
I think its real hard for schools to take this seriously......unless they or a school close-by has had a shooting. I'm glad my children are out of school.............but they could still get shot anytime anywhere.
As has been said, Free, firearms aren't magic...
As to your understanding of "clips", the utility and nature of "assault weapons", the tactics involved in a confrontation, and the state of the art in modern training practices, I find you uninformed. I would be happy to point interested parties to quality training and educational programs.
I was in the army and was trained in the use of many weapons including machine guns. We were not playing soldier we were soldiers. For those who want to play with weapons join one of the military services. With all of the training we were never issued live amo unless there was an immediate need or danger. Even as highly trained as we were the army knew that having fully armed troops all the time was not a good situation.
Edited to add: I will say that a some people have the ability and mental capacity to own firearms.
Just trying to understand what some of you mean about removing the stigma of mental illness??...
It sounds like it wasn't the system that let this shooter down, but rather his mother, who tried to cover it up.
In a way CathyA you just asked and answered your own question. Why would the mother try to cover her son's mental challenges up if such a condition was socially acceptable? I'm not sure if she did or not, but a lot of people seem to do exactly that. I know quite a few people who view mental illness differently than say...cancer. It's like you can't help it if you get cancer, but you should be able to work through significant mental issues if you're strong enough. If you can't overcome it that means you are weak and that, here in the John Wayne republic, is something you should be ashamed of. Aka, it's stigmatized. I have to confess to my own assumptions along those lines earlier in my life because that was a prevailing mindset when and where I was raised. We just didn't talk about people with serious mental issues in polite company. Knowing that is wrong doesn't necessarily make it easy to overcome. I can not offer any hard evidence or statistics, but I get a real feeling that we (as a society) still tend to treat afflictions of the mind differently than those of the body. Does that make any sense?
The following is from the Huffington Post. The killing with guns were all in one day in America. We should be ashamed of our nation to let this gun violence to continue.
Another Day, More Deaths: Two Police Officers Shot And Killed In Kansas... 3-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Himself, Dies... Gunman At Large After Shooting Victim 4 Times... Man Shoots Wife, Keeps Cops In Standoff For Hours... One Person Shot In San Antonio, Gunman Later Shot By Cops... Woman Shot At Campground... Woman Shot To Death, Son 'Thought She Was Sleeping'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I was in the army and was trained in the use of many weapons including machine guns. We were not playing soldier we were soldiers. For those who want to play with weapons join one of the military services.
Should I be required to attend Juilliard before I buy a piano?
I was in the army and was trained in the use of many weapons including machine guns. We were not playing soldier we were soldiers. For those who want to play with weapons join one of the military services.
And now I find you uninformed, and offensive. Cheers.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 1:35pm
I don't see the stigma either. So I really think "stigma" is a code word for FUNDING, which is certainly a topic to debate, but it's often pressing hard against limits of funds. There is not a healthcare plan imaginable where if full mental health services were included costs wouldn't increase (and medical care is already basically pushing unaffordable, for individuals, for companies, I don't think Medicare is broke, but at the state level even for government), state funding right now is drying up for Medicaid. However this shooters circumstances, um they lived in a very upper class place, so I'm not really convinced they were struggling economically.
Thanks for that perspective Gregg. I'm still confused as to how we would even deal with the incredibly long continuum of mental illnesses. If we took the "stigma" away..........what would that lead to? Would that mean more people would be institutionalized? More people would be on drugs? Would we just ignore people who seemed crazy and accept it as more normal? I'm just not sure how that would present itself. And where is the line drawn between just having idiosyncrasies and mental illness?
I thought this article that I provide a link for was interesting. The mother is really struggling and has acknowledged her son has a problem, but how to fix it? I'm not sure (and I guess none of us can be sure) why the shooter's mom didn't seek out help for her son. It may be more about who she was, her own psychological/mental make-up, rather than a fear of some stigma. Some people just don't want to expose themselves or anything about their lives to other people.
Here's that link: http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/
Miss Cellane
12-17-12, 2:04pm
Don't forget there was a father in the home, until 2009, when the shooter would have been about 17. What influence did the father had on the treatment/non-treatment of his son? There was clearly money enough for treatment.
And once the shooter turned 18, he was a legal adult and could refuse treatment if he wanted. The parents would have had a much harder time at that point to force him to get treatment.
At what point does the right of the individual to refuse treatment become such a public danger that we have to force the treatment on him/her?
My brother was diagnosed with a heart condition a few years ago. The standard treatment is a pacemaker. He didn't want a pacemaker. It's his right to refuse to get a pacemaker implanted.
And the doctors were cool with that. They just calmly informed him that he could refuse the pacemaker. But they'd have to notify the Registry of Motor Vehicles, because he couldn't be allowed to drive, as he might pass out at any moment, and would be a danger to himself and other behind the wheel of a car. Dear Brother decided to get the pacemaker.
There was direct, clear, significant consequence for my brother if he didn't get the pacemaker. Do we need something like this for certain types of mental illness, as well?
I don't see the stigma either. So I really think "stigma" is a code word for FUNDING, which is certainly a topic to debate, but it's often pressing hard against limits of funds. There is not a healthcare plan imaginable where if full mental health services were included costs wouldn't increase (and medical care is already basically pushing unaffordable, for individuals, for companies, I don't think Medicare is broke, but at the state level even for government), state funding right now is drying up for Medicaid. However this shooters circumstances, um they lived in a very upper class place, so I'm not really convinced they were struggling economically.
The reason medical care costs twice as much as it does in other countries is that we've insisted on a for-profit system for the last fifty years or so. There's not much profit in mental illness, apparently. Except for Pharma.
ApatheticNoMore
12-17-12, 2:10pm
Thinking about it, it does seem odd that most of these shooters are actually not the disadvantaged, who really in many ways are treated the worst by society, but seem more often to be people with quite a lot of economic advantages. I know having money isn't everything, their home life could be horrible abusive etc., but is it an upper middle class phenomena?
Thinking about it, it does seem odd that most of these shooters are actually not the disadvantaged, who really in many ways are treated the worst by society, but seem more often to be people with quite a lot of economic advantages. I know having money isn't everything, their home life could be horrible abusive etc., but is it an upper middle class phenomena?
I believe if you look, you will find that the disadvantaged are shooting each other every single day in our inner cities, it just rarely makes the news nation-wide, or provokes an outpouring of sympathy. Feel free to speculate why...
Thanks for that perspective Gregg. I'm still confused as to how we would even deal with the incredibly long continuum of mental illnesses. If we took the "stigma" away..........what would that lead to?
I don't know the count, but it seems like there are probably more diagnosed physical maladies than mental. We don't seem to have a problem treating most of them so a similar approach of identifying, cataloging, researching and treating should work. The greatest gains might be made by educating the patients themselves and/or their families. Just figuring out that something is not right is a huge part of the battle, but that takes education. So does understanding that treatment is available and (in most cases) effective. But we aren't taught that. I don't know a single thing about how it is handled anywhere but here. Here, in a very highly rated high school, my DD's health curriculum includes one chapter on any mental health issue (depression). That section only covers a few of the basic symptoms and only lists a few common medications as potential treatments. That's it. I'm not saying our kids need to come out of high school with psych degrees, but we can do better than that.
Making it easier to get help is a key and frankly is where I hope removing the stigma would lead. For example, my health insurance is very good with the physical side of my well being, but allows just three covered visits to mental health professionals. Three. I doubt Adam Lanza could have reached a point of being able to comfortably integrate into society in three visits, but by God if he would have had a hangnail he could have gone back as many times as it took to get it fixed. That makes no sense, but is a big part of what I describe as stigmatized.
awakenedsoul
12-17-12, 2:40pm
I was in a situation were being highly trained and armed would have done me no good. I was in a bank robbery. I was setting at my desk when three men came in with weapons drawn. One stood at the door with a shotgun, one went down the teller line pointing a 9 mm at the tellers and collecting money, the other came up to my desk and pointed a 9 mm at my head. All the firearms in the world and training would have did me no good. These robbers probably got there their fire arms from law abiding citizens in robberies. People who do own firearms should be required to have them securely locked up when they are not home.
Firearms are just to easy to obtain and many are in the hands of people who should not have them. The assault and high capacity clip restrictions being talked about also make since. Assault weapons are not the best home protection weapons and clips with more than 10 rounds in them are also not necessary. If you can not hit your attacker with 10 rounds another 20 wont help you. You need more training.
One time when I was in Westwood, CA a woman at the back door of a bank, (it was glass,) motioned to me and said, "There's a bank robbery going on. Call the police." This was 28 years ago, before cell phones. I went to a pay phone and called the police. I never found out what happened. I got out of there. It was fortunate that we both were in the right place at the right time.
I read today that Adam's mother took him with her to the shooting range. I think a lot of parents slip into denial about their kids. I've seen it around here. Most of these parents, drink heavily, take drugs, and they all have guns. A lot of their kids have gone to jail by age 22. I'm sure they could easily get their parents' guns.
I take my daughter to the shooting range. I think I bought her her first rifle when she was 10, though she'd been shooting since 6. She regularly wins shooting competitions here, and organized the 4H and high school shooting clubs. I trust her completely with firearms, and other weapons, but then again, she isn't mentally disturbed, nor does she drink or use drugs.
I got her a wonderful sword for this Christmas, she's been training with blades for years now. If she ran amok with that sword, she'd be unstoppable by most. But she won't.
Thinking about it, it does seem odd that most of these shooters are actually not the disadvantaged, who really in many ways are treated the worst by society, but seem more often to be people with quite a lot of economic advantages. I know having money isn't everything, their home life could be horrible abusive etc., but is it an upper middle class phenomena?
Middle and upper-middle class parents are more likely to have health insurance. I haven't dug deeply into this issue, but my guess is that most of these mass murderers have been medicated. They don't put black box warnings on drug inserts for no reason.
Bae.....your point? You keep bringing up how perfect and safe everything around your weapon usage always is. But for alot of people out there with access to guns, this isn't the reality at all.
Bae.....your point? You keep bringing up how perfect and safe everything around your weapon usage always is. But for alot of people out there with access to guns, this isn't the reality at all.
My point is that demonizing gun owners, which always seems to happen in these threads, and society in general, isn't productive.
And saying everything in your life is perfect, which always happens, isn't necessarily what's going on out there in society either. Hearing about your handling of guns doesn't make me feel any less disturbed or hopeful or accepting of guns in the wrong hands out there.
SteveinMN
12-17-12, 5:16pm
I don't know the count, but it seems like there are probably more diagnosed physical maladies than mental. We don't seem to have a problem treating most of them so a similar approach of identifying, cataloging, researching and treating should work.
I think part of the problem is that we still know so little about how the brain and nervous system works. We know that diabetes is caused by inadequate production and/or utilization of insulin in the body. Enhance the ability of the body to produce insulin or simply add it and the patient is at least on the road to recovery. We still don't know why someone becomes manic-depressive -- is it a chemical or hormonal deficiency? A kind of mental reaction to certain stimuli? We don't know yet.
That mystery is one reason why I believe there is a stigma to mental illness. The other is, as you mentioned, that people tend to think that many mental problems are -- pardon the pun -- "all in your head". Depression is a failure to think positively. Is the baby colicky or are those early signs of reactive attachment disorder? It's okay that grandma's bad hip makes her a little slow walking down the aisle of the store, but people have a hard time understanding if grandma is a little slow because her mind isn't as sharp as it used to be. The Marlboro Man may have broken or sprained something if his horse bucked and he may even have gotten lung cancer from all the cigarettes, but damn if he wasn't always on top of things emotionally.
Making it easier to get help is a key and frankly is where I hope removing the stigma would lead. For example, my health insurance is very good with the physical side of my well being, but allows just three covered visits to mental health professionals. Three. I doubt Adam Lanza could have reached a point of being able to comfortably integrate into society in three visits, but by God if he would have had a hangnail he could have gone back as many times as it took to get it fixed. That makes no sense, but is a big part of what I describe as stigmatized.
In addition to almost-comical limits on the number of visits, those visits also come with their own deductible and even different percentages of coverage. And they're never as favorable to the patient as physical-illness coverage.
iris lily
12-17-12, 6:14pm
My point is that demonizing gun owners, which always seems to happen in these threads, and society in general, isn't productive.
oh sure, that's typical.
But I wonder, bae--are there any restrictions in gun ownership that you'd like to see happen? Ones that may or may not have come out of this Newtown incident? What do you think the political approach should be in addressing new cries for gun control?
And saying everything in your life is perfect, which always happens, isn't necessarily what's going on out there in society either. Hearing about your handling of guns doesn't make me feel any less disturbed or hopeful or accepting of guns in the wrong hands out there.
It's kind of like saying countries with nuclear weapons have generally handled them ok - so what's the big deal with letting any country that wants to have nuclear weapons?
But I wonder, bae--are there any restrictions in gun ownership that you'd like to see happen?
Are you familiar with the many thousands of existing laws on the books? Many of which don't get enforced, except when convenient?
I'd start with cleaning up the existing mess of legislation, at the local and state levels. Then at the Federal level. Then ruthlessly enforce what remains. (Maybe stop having the Federal government sell guns to Mexican drug cartels while we are at it.)
And I'd keep violent criminals away from guns by not re-releasing them into society if we believe they are still violent. The fellow mentioned above who killed the four police officers in Lakeland in 2009 had 5 felony convictions in Arkansas, and was released from there on parole from a 108-year sentence that had been reduced to 47 years. He then violated parole several times and committed further violent crimes, was resentenced, reparoled, moved to Washington State, where he then violated his new parole and was facing multiple felony charges for violent crimes, released on bond, committed rapes while out on bond, was rebonded after his hearing for the rapes, then he decided to go kill himself some police officers. First let's try keeping these monsters off the streets, forever, then maybe we can talk to normal law-abiding citizens about why they don't have to worry about defending themselves...
Also, I'd like to see concealed-carry licenses recognized by all states, as per Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, as they currently recognize drivers' licenses and marriage licenses (unless you happen to fall in love with the wrong person of course...).
I'd like to see mandatory firearms safety training made part of the health curriculum in the K-12 school system.
I'm perfectly fine with requiring firearms not in use to be stored safely. I note that many states already require such, and every firearm I have purchased in the past decade or more has come with a lock, instructions on safe storage, and sometimes a mechanism of securing the lock to a fixed object.
I'm quite open to discussion of how we can prevent people who have mental difficulties from accessing firearms, in the context of when it is appropriate for us to preemptively strip someone of their freedoms who has not yet caused any harm...
What do you think the political approach should be in addressing new cries for gun control?
I prefer an approach based on data and civil liberties over knee-jerk emotional reactions.
I think part of the problem is that we still know so little about how the brain and nervous system works........
That mystery is one reason why I believe there is a stigma to mental illness. The other is, as you mentioned, that people tend to think that many mental problems are -- pardon the pun -- "all in your head". Depression is a failure to think positively.
Exactly Steve. In an attempt to think positively it wasn't all that long ago that we didn't understand most physical maladies, either. Great progress has been made in understanding the mental and emotional side of humans, but my layman's guess is that we haven't even scratched the surface of what's really there. It's a daunting task to be sure, but then again most humans were riding horses in 1900 and less than 70 years later we were brushing lunar dust off our boots. Just maybe mankind's next great adventure will be a little closer to home...
Are you familiar with the many thousands of existing laws on the books? Many of which don't get enforced, except when convenient?
I'd start with cleaning up the existing mess of legislation, at the local and state levels. Then at the Federal level. Then ruthlessly enforce what remains. (Maybe stop having the Federal government sell guns to Mexican drug cartels while we are at it.)
And I'd keep violent criminals away from guns by not re-releasing them into society if we believe they are still violent.
This -- as a starting point. If we need to fine-tune after that, then lets do so. But starting here is a great idea.
And then, i agree with what is often called "prison reform." And of course we need reform in health/human services in terms of mental health care/etc.
But this:
I'm quite open to discussion of how we can prevent people who have mental difficulties from accessing firearms, in the context of when it is appropriate for us to preemptively strip someone of their freedoms who has not yet caused any harm...
is very true. I'd happily talk about options. I love talking about options. But I don't believe that violating the 14th amendment is that cool.
This might be of interest to some:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#
A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:
Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
...
Thanks, Bae. I had seen this, but not from the original source. Here is a moving first person opinion from someone who grew up in Newtown.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tucker-reed/more-than-prayers-sandy_b_2312583.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tucker-reed/more-than-prayers-sandy_b_2312583.html)
freein05
12-17-12, 10:05pm
Should I be required to attend Juilliard before I buy a piano?
Playing a piano is a little different than buying a gun unless you are an awful at playing it.
freein05
12-17-12, 10:13pm
And now I find you uninformed, and offensive. Cheers.
You are correct in that I was offensive and I apologize. Uninformed I would have to disagree with you. I have been using firearms since I was sixteen and got rid of most of my guns a few years ago. I still have a shotgun and the 22 rifle I got for my 16th birthday. I was a gun nut at one time. I am no longer a gun nut. That does not make me uninformed.
You are correct in that I was offensive and I apologize. Uninformed I would have to disagree with you. I have been using firearms since I was sixteen and got rid of most of my guns a few years ago. I still have a shotgun and the 22 rifle I got for my 16th birthday. I was a gun nut at one time. I am no longer a gun nut. That does not make me uninformed.
What is a "clip"?...
Hint: Garands have "clips". AR-15 derivatives have "magazines". The AR design has been in service since 1963, the design is from 1957. Did you serve before this, and lack familiarity with the firearms of the past 60 years or so?
Or is your use of "clip" in your previous posts simply indicative of a lack of knowledge of modern firearms and proper nomenclature?
awakenedsoul
12-17-12, 11:24pm
I was thinking today about how many young people Adam's age that I meet today are depressed and on prescription drugs. They just aren't grounded. When you have a job you enjoy, get a good daily physical workout, have healthy sexual release, and are able to support yourself and pay your bills, you are balanced. You set goals and hopefully work towards those goals and achieve them. You have friends and romance, and you enjoy life. When I was 22, I was having the time of my life! I felt on top of the world. I was talking to my neighbor about it, and she feels that these kids have no hope. (She has two boys in their early twenties. One is in jail.) Most of them still live with their parents, so they have conflict over rules and they don't mature the way they would if they were living on their own.
I wonder how many of the young adults I meet are really emotionally disturbed. (I don't mean Adam.) I've had students in this age bracket come to my class and tell me afterwards, "I did drugs, I cut myself, I drank," and on and on... It's like they are proud of their self destructive lifestyles and want sympathy. There's just such a heaviness of self pity to them. I don't know if it's all the technology, reality t.v., or what. I was very happy and excited about life at that age. It's really a shame.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.