Connecticut School Shooting Dec 14th 2012

[Furinkazen]

I'd suggest that if he was a violent-to-the-point-of-terrifying Asperger's - on the verge of committal for his extreme violent behaviour - it wouldn't be wrong to solely apply blame to it. One minor spark - like finding out his mum's going to commit him - and he's in a prolonged psychopathic fury, the kind where he breaks out the firearms, kills his dad, marches to the local school where his mum works to kill her and then redmisting the hell out of the place. I've seen a kid like that take an hour of three adults restraining him before he stopped trying to rip their skin off. And his own.

Of course if he was a quiet, charming Asperger's who collected and named model dinosaurs, it's probably not connected.

Exactly - I know a couple of people who have aspergers and when they got angry in the past they would pretty much be ready to throw something if it was nearby. (Thankfully not now).

Problem is media exposure like this makes people think that everyone with aspergers is like this, they're not. At least that's the danger.

 

[adam46]

Correct, it may have been a contributing factor, but it's wrong to solely to apply blame to it. I've seen how big a range behaviors are of people in the autistic spectrum.

Yes. I see this daily. The reactions to occurunces are amazingly different at my school. Some people have been known to threaten other students with knives yet others just let it all fly over their heads. The difference's in mindset and motivation is just as fascinating.

We'll never know what was running through the gunman's mind though.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Really? Do you have a link? I couldn't find any details.

Saw it on tv...they took the guy away...talked to him...and determined he had no connection and he was just passing by.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Predictably, the NRA doesn't like the idea of gun reform:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-22/nra-defiant-as-america-mourns-newtown-victims/4441070

"What if when [Newtown gunman] Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday he'd been confronted by qualified armed security? Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 little kids, that 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day? Is it so abhorrent to you that you'd rather continue to risk the alternative?"

What if, when Lanza started planning out his shooting, he found it impossible to obtain weapons through legal channels, because legal restrictions prevented him from getting them? Would the NRA at least admit that in limiting his ability to acquire these weapons, it's possible that Lanza could have been stopped? Or is this so abhorrent to them that they would rather continue to risk the alternative?

I might not be American, but I am a teacher - and I can genuinely say that the idea of having armed personnel on school grounds does not just make me uncomfortable; it makes me downright terrified. How am I supposed to be able to teach in an envionrment where live weapons are present? How am I supposed to be able to trust those carrying said weapons to be able to use them appropriately and responsibly simply because the NRA says so? How am I supposed to be able to trust the NRA's judgement when I know they value an archaic, out-dated and unnecessary right more than the lives of twenty children? They're effectively saying "Our right to carry weapons is more important than the lives of every child in your classroom", which is incredibly disturbing given that I am legally responsible for the well-being of those children.

So what am I supposed to do in this situation? Should I refuse to teach simply because I'm not comfortable with people carrying weapons on school grounds in any capacity? That will only make the situation worse, because a) removing myself from the equation solves nothing, and b) it deprives the students of the opportunity to learn since if I hold that position full-time and then decide to leave, the students would only ever be taught by the next-best alternative teacher until a full-time replacement could be found.

How can anyone reasonably say that risking the lives, livelihoods and futures of children for the sake of protecting a right that is controversial at best is a good idea? And worse, how can anyone who thinks that is a good idea be in such a powerful position? When I finished university, I seriously considered looking into teaching in America in some capacity, and I came seriously close to applying - but because people like the NRA can make such unreasonable decisions and pretend they are for the benefit of all, I decided against it (among other reasons). And with every statement they make, they prove to me that my decision to stay here in Australia was the right one.

 

[arora]

What if, when Lanza started planning out his shooting, he found it impossible to obtain his mothers weapons because, her knowing her son's condition was unstable enough to consider committing him, she locked them away?

 

[Northstar]

What if, when Lanza started planning out his shooting, he found it impossible to obtain weapons through legal channels, because legal restrictions prevented him from getting them?

I've told you this before, HE STOLE IT!!!!!!!!

He didn't acquire it legally, in fact I'm fairly certain I heard he tried to get one but was denied(can't recall where I heard it though so it may be false).

 

[Grayfox]

I heard the gun was his mothers who was a gun lover.

And with armed guards in schools.

What happens when a bunch of bullies decide to tackle the guard and take his gun?
He won't/can't shoot some stupid kids

Or if the kids taunt him every day he might snap and the last thing you want is a guard with a gun in a school going mental.

 

[Nicksfix]

in fact I'm fairly certain I heard he tried to get one but was denied(can't recall where I heard it though so it may be false).

Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday.

article

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've told you this before, HE STOLE IT!!!!!!!!

You seem to think that by pointing out that Lanza stole the weapons, you have negated my entire point. You haven't. One of the weapons Lanza stole was this, a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle (though this is a file photo):

Whether or not it was actually used in the shooting is open to speculation, but I can think of no reasonable explanation for a civilian to be carrying that around. So how was it ever in a position where it could have been stolen by a disturbed young man and used in the massacre of twenty children aged six and seven? And how is the right to own such a weapon so important to people that it is worth risking the lives of another twenty children? More importantly, why is the right to own this thing worth risking those lives?

Furthermore, you haven't addressed my point: how is legislation that enables people to legally carry handguns on school property for "protection" a good idea?

 

[arora]

So how was it ever in a position where it could have been stolen by a disturbed young man and used in the massacre of twenty children aged six and seven?

His mother was irresponsible.

And how is the right to own such a weapon so important to people that it is worth risking the lives of another twenty children? More importantly, why is the right to own this thing worth risking those lives?

We had a ban on these types of weapons from 1994-2004, it does not appear to have made a significant difference in our crime rates.

 

[Nicksfix]

how is legislation that enables people to legally carry handguns on school property for "protection" a good idea?

Why is it the idea of a gun is good when it's used to protect the President / Politicians or our country and our police / military, but it's all of a sudden bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools ?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President, Senator, Congressman isn't a bad thing. A gun in the hands of soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a Police officer protecting citizens isn't a bad thing.


I suppose our kids just don't count ... do they ?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Furthermore, you haven't addressed my point: how is legislation that enables people to legally carry handguns on school property for "protection" a good idea?

How is it a bad one?

 

[Zenith]

And how is the right to own such a weapon so important to people that it is worth risking the lives of another twenty children? More importantly, why is the right to own this thing worth risking those lives?

1) It is a hobby to work on a machine.
2) It is the best weapon for a militia. (2nd Amendment)
3) It is a great home defense weapon.
4) It is the most popular 3-Gun rifle.
5) It is a great hunting rifle.

The AR15 is infinitely configurable. It can be used for anything and it is the most popular rifle in America. 1 out of every 4 rifles built in 2009 was an AR15.

Ownership of the gun doesn't risk lives, crazy people out in the streets risk lives.

 

[Northstar]

You seem to think that by pointing out that Lanza stole the weapons, you have negated my entire point. You haven't.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I agree with the rest of your post, thought it would have been pointless just saying "I agree" but apparently it was needed.

Edit: I also agree about the post I just quoted, except the part where you come off like a stereotypical teacher.

 

[Zenith]

I might not be American, but I am a teacher - and I can genuinely say that the idea of having armed personnel on school grounds does not just make me uncomfortable; it makes me downright terrified. How am I supposed to be able to teach in an envionrment where live weapons are present?

Did you not have cops ever visit your campus? Did they have guns? Why did you trust them? Statistically they are more likely to commit a violent crime than those who have concealed carry permits here in the US.

How am I supposed to be able to trust those carrying said weapons to be able to use them appropriately and responsibly simply because the NRA says so?

Show me where the NRA used the "because I said so" argument...

How am I supposed to be able to trust the NRA's judgement when I know they value an archaic, out-dated and unnecessary right more than the lives of twenty children? They're effectively saying "Our right to carry weapons is more important than the lives of every child in your classroom", which is incredibly disturbing given that I am legally responsible for the well-being of those children.

How can anyone reasonably say that risking the lives, livelihoods and futures of children for the sake of protecting a right that is controversial at best is a good idea?

Nobody is saying that the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is more important than the lives of children.

What many are saying that using the right to bear arms is a way we can help keep our classrooms secure and the lives of children safe.

Nobody is trading lives for liberty. This has been said many times.

 

[arora]

The AR15 is infinitely configurable. It can be used for anything and it is the most popular rifle in America. 1 out of every 4 rifles built in 2009 was an AR15.

I will stick with my marlin 30/30, it used to be something greatly frowned upon but always defended as the gun with the most deer kills lol.

Around here we say meat pole, which simply means success. All of that is hunting related though, I've been wanting a ruger 22-250 for years, pretty damn flat with a range on it.

It's not really hard to see how little I like the short barrel semi auto stuff but it's just me and it's not because I disagree with the 2nd amendment.

 

[arora]

I might not be American, but I am a teacher - and I can genuinely say that the idea of having armed personnel on school grounds does not just make me uncomfortable; it makes me downright terrified. How am I supposed to be able to teach in an envionrment where live weapons are present?

Oh that part, I forgot to say I'd be for banning public schools before banning guns, and btw 'gun free zone' is utter crap.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Nobody is trading lives for liberty. This has been said many times.

And yet, that's exactly what it souds like when the NRA claim that schools should have armed guards and that this is the best solution. With less than half the country owning guns, they come across as trying to protect the needs of the few at the expense of the needs of the many.

 

[arora]

Our laws are there to protect the minority from the majority 👍

 

[Zenith]

And yet, that's exactly what it souds like when the NRA claim that schools should have armed guards and that this is the best solution. With less than half the country owning guns, they come across as trying to protect the needs of the few at the expense of the needs of the many.

They are protecting the needs of the few against legislation that will be laughably ineffective at protecting the needs of the many and violate the rights of everyone.

 

[Gazumagi]

They are protecting the needs of the few against legislation that will be laughably ineffective at protecting the needs of the many and violate the rights of everyone.

Because armed guards would be much better, right?...

 

[Zenith]

Because armed guards would be much better, right?...

Of some sort. Could be teachers, could be cops.

We tried no guns. Look how well that worked.

Get out of fantasy land.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They are protecting the needs of the few against legislation that will be laughably ineffective at protecting the needs of the many and violate the rights of everyone.

No, they are just being selfish. They are saying "my right to own a gun is more important than the right of everyone else's child to live". It's selfish, because they won't consider giving up the right to bear arms on any level. Even if it could guarantee something like this would never happen again.

 

[Zenith]

No, they are just being selfish. They are saying "my right to own a gun is more important than the right of everyone else's child to live". It's selfish, because they won't consider giving up the right to bear arms on any level. Even if it could guarantee something like this would never happen again.

Did you read what I said?

Nobody is saying that the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms is more important than the lives of children.

What many are saying that using the right to bear arms is a way we can help keep our classrooms secure and the lives of children safe.

Nobody is trading lives for liberty. This has been said many times.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Of some sort. Could be teachers, could be cops.

As a teacher, I would have to say that I would find the idea of carrying a weapon in my classroom, or having someone carry a weapon in my school to be deeply disturbing and symptomatic of political climate that values the wrong things.

We tried no guns. Look how well that worked.

I live in a country where there is some fairly strict gun control. And I have taught in schools that have had students with serious problems - students who come from broken homes and poverty, whose parents are dead or in prison, who have struggled with drug addiction, self-mutilation and have been considered a suicide risk. I have seen students who get violent, students who bring knives to school and students who threaten their peers and their teachers with violence and even death. I have seen students openly display gang signs, and been in schools where ethnic and religious tensions have threatened to boil over at any minute.

But I have never been concerned for my own personal safety in any of these schools. Nor have I ever feared for the personal safety of my students, or my ability, the school's ability or my fellow teachers' ability to protect them from harm.

If you introduce guns into that mix, then everything changes. For the worse. No matter who is in control of the weapon at any given moment, I cannot guarantee the safety of my students. I cannot guarantee my ability or the school's ability or my fellow teachers' ability to protect them. And above all else, I cannot give up that ability so that people like Wayne LaPierre can sleep better at night, comfortable in the knowledge that the government won't take away his gun. And nor would I be willing to give that up.

The system works here. I see no reason why it can't in America.

Get out of fantasy land.

Do you honestly think that having armed guards at schools is the right idea?

Just look at what Adam Lanza did in the time leading up to the shooting - he erased and destroyed his computer hard drive, somehow acquired his brother's identification, shot and killed his mother and sought out various individuals in the school before opening fire on the students. All of this speaks to premeditiation. Whatever his emotional, psychological or mental issues, this was a planned crime.

If there had been a guard with a gun at Sandy Hook Elementary, what do you think would have happened? Lanza would have identified the guard whilst planning the attack, sought them out, and shot them. And then who, exactly, would have been there to stop him?

What many are saying that using the right to bear arms is a way we can help keep our classrooms secure and the lives of children safe.

But here's the problem with that logic: it shouldn't have to come to that. Guns should not be needed to protect the lives and livelihoods of students. The sheer fact that anyone is even cultivating the idea that they are necessary proves that your system isn't just broken, but that it is completely shattered.

 

[Zenith]

As a teacher, I would have to say that I would find the idea of carrying a weapon in my classroom, or having someone carry a weapon in my school to be deeply disturbing and symptomatic of political climate that values the wrong things.

Then I'd encourage you to look at this shooting and the one in Norway are realize that wishful thinking is not a very good defense against an intent to slaughter.

You call it disturbing, I call it responsible.

I live in a country where there is some fairly strict gun control. And I have taught in schools that have had students with serious problems - students who come from broken homes and poverty, whose parents are dead or in prison, who have struggled with drug addiction, self-mutilation and have been considered a suicide risk. I have seen students who get violent, students who bring knives to school and students who threaten their peers and their teachers with violence and even death. I have seen students openly display gang signs, and been in schools where ethnic and religious tensions have threatened to boil over at any minute.

I don't feel safe knowing those people have access to weaponry. I would feel even more unsafe if I didn't.

But I have never been concerned for my own personal safety in any of these schools. Nor have I ever feared for the personal safety of my students, or my ability, the school's ability or my fellow teachers' ability to protect them from harm.

If you introduce guns into that mix, then everything changes. For the worse.

Nobody is introducing guns. They're already here. There's about 300 million of them or more. Even if you could whisk them away (impossible), there's still Mexico and illegal arms manufacture and trade. Our government even likes to dip their toes into that.

No matter who is in control of the weapon at any given moment, I cannot guarantee the safety of my students. I cannot guarantee my ability or the school's ability or my fellow teachers' ability to protect them. And above all else, I cannot give up that ability so that people like Wayne LaPierre can sleep better at night, comfortable in the knowledge that the government won't take away his gun. And nor would I be willing to give that up.

You're forgetting that Adam Lanza and everyone who doesn't care if they break the law will still have their guns. You said it yourself, premeditation. He meant to do this and would get his hands on a weapon no matter what legislation you put in place to stop him.

The system works here. I see no reason why it can't in America

According to that video about Australia's gun ban, your crime rate went up like crazy after the buy-back. So did the UK's. So did Chicago's. I've posted this at least a dozen times, I'll post it again.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

You call that working? Even if it did, the US has a very different crime problem than yours. You are an island nation. We share a border with Mexico. You don't and have never had nearly the same drug, gang, and general violence problem we have.

Do you honestly think that having armed guards at schools is the right idea?

Just look at what Adam Lanza did in the time leading up to the shooting - he erased and destroyed his computer hard drive, somehow acquired his brother's identification, shot and killed his mother and sought out various individuals in the school before opening fire on the students. All of this speaks to premeditiation. Whatever his emotional, psychological or mental issues, this was a planned crime.

If there had been a guard with a gun at Sandy Hook Elementary, what do you think would have happened? Lanza would have identified the guard whilst planning the attack, sought them out, and shot them. And then who, exactly, would have been there to stop him?

Why do you and all the other anti-gun people assume there will be exactly one person with a gun? Nobody guards locations with a single guard. We also have several cops at high schools, even more at colleges. Those are "armed guards".

I've said this three times on this thread.

But here's the problem with that logic: it shouldn't have to come to that. Guns should not be needed to protect the lives and livelihoods of students. The sheer fact that anyone is even cultivating the idea that they are necessary proves that your system isn't just broken, but that it is completely shattered.

Guns should not be needed to protect the lives of students? I assume that hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there.

I do not suggest guns as the only measure that needs to take place, but they are necessary no matter what else you do. It doesn't matter how much attention and money you pour into mental health and other means to prevent massacres and crime. They will happen. Until the death-ray is invented, guns are the best tools for defending against any criminals or lunatics that are not dealt with.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm only going to respond to one part of you response. You will see why in a minute:

Guns should not be needed to protect the lives of students? I assume that hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there.

I never said that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". I never insinuated that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". Nor did I imply, infer, intimate, suggest or allude to - on any level - the idea that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". Not once.

You, sir, have put words in my mouth, and in doing so, you have attempted to make me out to be some kind unrealistic politically-correct new-age anti-disciplinarian. If that was not your intention, it is nevertheless how you have presented yourself. The fact that you have needed to resort to such a petty tactic in order to make you point demonstrates to me that nothing you have said is of any worth. You clearly do not respect the people you are debating with, and therefore your argument will not be respected in turn. At least not until you apologise.

Now, you may think that you don't need my respect, and that my refusal to continue tis debate with you means that you have somehow won. Rest assured, however, that neither is true. I may be nothing more to you than a series of zeroes and ones mathematically arranged on your computer screen, but the truth is that you need my respect. I am a totally transient element to you, someone who will pass through your life in the most indirect and impersonal way for the briefest of moments. If you cannot earn the respect of someone so physically disconnected from you, how can you possibly expect the respect of anyone who is meaningful to you? And by virtue of that, how can your arguments hold any weight when your are so dismissive as to indulge in such a subversive line of argument?

 

[Zenith]

I never said that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". I never insinuated that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". Nor did I imply, infer, intimate, suggest or allude to - on any level - the idea that "hugs and kisses will have a 100% success rate for every mentally-ill or criminal out there". Not once.

You, sir, have put words in my mouth, and in doing so, you have attempted to make me out to be some kind unrealistic politically-correct new-age anti-disciplinarian. If that was not your intention, it is nevertheless how you have presented yourself. The fact that you have needed to resort to such a petty tactic in order to make you point demonstrates to me that nothing you have said is of any worth. You clearly do not respect the people you are debating with, and therefore your argument will not be respected in turn. At least not until you apologise.

That portion of my post was a joke, maybe my tone was not clear in the text. I apologize if you took offense to it or felt that I was attempting to make you out as some "unrealistic politically-correct new-age anti-disciplinarian". I was not. I value your opinions, that's why I respond to them.

 

[Gazumagi]

Of some sort. Could be teachers, could be cops.

We tried no guns. Look how well that worked.

Get out of fantasy land.

And what would happen when there was a shooting somewhere else?

Oh, let's put armed guards there too! Because, you know, fair is fair, and guns stop guns to if we have guns everywhere nobody will use them... And then everywhere you go has multiple people with guns in it...

I wouldn't feel safe living like that.

 

[arora]

No, they are just being selfish. They are saying "my right to own a gun is more important than the right of everyone else's child to live". It's selfish, because they won't consider giving up the right to bear arms on any level. Even if it could guarantee something like this would never happen again.

Even if it could guarantee? Even though it clearly does not?

You being a teacher and all, I find it appalling your answer is restriction over education.