Connecticut School Shooting Dec 14th 2012

[Northstar]

We tried no guns. Look how well that worked.

Columbine had an armed guard on duty during the shooting and Fort Hood had plenty of people with guns, both managed to get death tolls in the teens and many more injured.

 

[Famine]

Columbine had an armed guard on duty during the shooting

And he was unable to stop them - just as if he hadn't been there. After that, they shot at the disarmed. Meanwhile it took five minutes - five minutes after the shooting started - for the first external police to arrive.

If you're being shot at by a pair of psychopaths, would you be happier with an on-the-spot defender (who ultimately failed), or one five minutes away?

and Fort Hood had plenty of people with guns

Hasan chose a spot where there were no armed personnel - the soldier readiness processing center. The first armed person on the scene was a civilian policewoman for the base. The second - and the person that ended the shooting - was a civilian policeman for the base.

It's worth reiterating. The shooter picked on the disarmed. Two armed policemen stationed at the facility ended the incident.

 

[photonrider]

Why are they yelling out about GUN . . . Control?! Gun . . Bans?

No, no, no no, no . . .

Spin doctors at work again. These are words . . . words that are clouding the issue.

What we do need is FIREARMS REGULATION.

Just like we have Car bans and Car Control. . . or rather Automotive Regulations. There are some cars that are banned on the public roads. Some cars that are not allowed to race. Some people not allowed to drive. Seatbelts and insurance mandatory, emission control . . . and so on ans so forth. AUTOMOTIVE REGULATIONS. No one has a problem with that. (Actually Car Bans, and Car Control, right? )

NO. WE don't need GUN CONTROL. NO, we dont need GUN Bans. We don't like Controls and Banning. It's natural to us.

WE DO NEED FIREARMS REGULATION. Everywhere in the world. And yes, in the US, too.
The Queen of Canada is too busy to invade you guys; she's busy with baby showers and so on.

Eventually the 2nd Thought Amendment is going to have to allow the householder in the US to own a dozen AR-15s. And then the cops are going to find it hard to get in there if that home is successfully invaded and taken over by the bad guys.

Talk about a gun fight at NOT OK Corral.. . .

Regulate your Firearm Ownership, Americans. Just like you regulate your automobiles. And your crosswalks. And your road speed limits. Safety is the issue here when we're talking about protecting yourselves. And your progeny. Funny, no?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Canada has a queen?

 

[Oshawa-Joe]

Queen Elizabeth ll

 

[sumbrownkid]

Forgot about that old bird.

 

[Famine]

Regulate your Firearm Ownership, Americans.

They already do.

Remember the Second Amendment merely says the Federal government can't interfere with normal citizens' ability to procure firearms - it reserves that power to the states themselves and the states all have different rules. The USA is a country made of fifty smaller countries and the Constitution exists to allow the countries to keep their identities while sharing resources.

The Second Amendment isn't a rule that says "Guns for all!" - it's a rule that says "The Federal government must not interfere in State decisions on guns".

Connecticut has required licences and background checks for all kinds of firearm. It has the seventh lowest number of households with firearms and the fifth lowest number of citizens with firearms. This shooting occurred despite gun control in Connecticut not because of the lack of gun control in the USA.

 

[photonrider]

They already do.

Obviously. With a serious lack of enforceability. Maybe they need 'better' Regulations? The ones they have had so far have demonstrated a serious famine of practical intelligence - in fact a dearth of good sense - which has led to this situation. However - I see your point; it may be hard to go back.

I see you like quoting yourself a lot - I must boost my intake of Vitamin A so as to let you successfully colour my thinking. 👍

 

[Lock2Lock]

Most places don't have the same restrictions on rifles as handguns. In my opinion they need to have the same.

Most stores in just about all states a 18 year old could walk in buy a rifle and walk out with no hassle or waiting period.

 

[arora]

In all states I believe, but hey ya know? we used to draft our 18 year olds and ship them off to Veitnam as well.

 

[Famine]

Obviously. With a serious lack of enforceability.

How so?

Holding a firearm without a licence to do so is, specifically, a firearms offence that will exclude you from future licences. Holding a firearm as a prohibited person is, specifically, a firearms offence that will exclude you from future licences.

Both are indictable crimes - or what USians would call "felonies" - that attract really quite serious penalties. The enforceability doesn't seem to be lacking to me.

Still, you're well placed enough that you don't have to take my word for it. Go south of the border clutching a handgun and see if they enforce their regulations.

Maybe they need 'better' Regulations? The ones they have had so far have demonstrated a serious famine of practical intelligence - in fact a dearth of good sense - which has led to this situation.

You think there's a lack of intelligence in the existing firearm regulations? You might need to explain. I quoted Connecticut's existing firearm regulations in an earlier post, but I'll precis so you don't have to read me quoting myself:

Retailers must have a valid retail licence to sell firearms.
Retailers must undergo mandatory firearm safety courses.
Retailers must not employ under 18s or anyone prohibited from holding firearms.
Handguns require a background check before a licence is issued.
Rifles require a background check before a licence is issued.
Shotguns require a background check before a licence is issued.
Assault weapons may only be held by police and law enforcement officers with a valid special certificate - and they may not own them privately.
Prohibited persons include

• Under 21s
• Anyone convicted of serious juvenile crime
• Anyone found not guilty of any crime of any kind in the last 20 years due to insanity
• Anyone convicted of domestic violence involving any weapon of any kind
• Anyone convicted of any offence where a firearm was involved
• Anyone convicted of drug possession
• Anyone convicted of negligent homicide
• Anyone convicted of assault
• Anyone convicted of reckless endangerment
• Anyone convicted of rioting or incitement to riot
• Anyone convicted of stalking
• Anyone convicted of unlawful restraint
• Anyone currently under a restraining order

Anyone moving to the State with an assault weapon has 90 days to sell it to a retailer, have it deactivated or surrender it.
Private sales of handguns require the buyer to have a licence.
Private sales of shotguns require the buyer to have a licence.
In private sales of rifles, it is an offence to sell a weapon to someone you know is prohibited from holding a licence.

Tell me how that's not sensible.

 

[a6m5]

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.

Because many of us don't believe that form of control they suggest would be effective. Putting this statement in our mouths that we are trading our right to own firearms for the lives of children is uncalled for. Countless items from vehicles to tall buildings to electricity have taken lives of children. We don't accuse them of sacrificing children, or try to ban them(maybe except Greenpeace folks).

It's funny how America is seen as a dangerous place from overseas, but those people are eager to disarm the law abiding civilians. Keep in mind, nobody actually believes that a ban would disarm the criminals, just good people like you & me, who respect others & the law. In the U.S., police can not always be there for you. It is something I never experienced in Japan, where 99% of the people live where police can get to you promptly, and we didn't have riots, or gangs & looters when natural disasters hit. Crime rates were also lower.

I'm all for secure storage of the firearms, background checking, practical measures like that. Granted, that wouldn't have stopped Adam Lanza, but I don't believe in some perfect solution either. When somebody decides to go the length he did & things go his way, it will be hard to stop them regardless.

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.

You must be joking. We haven't felt safe since the beginning of the civilizations. In the safest nations, we have armed guards protecting what needs to be protected.

You want to feel safe? We just had a crazy man murder classroom full of young kids. With, or without firearms, how is having people like that around safe? I think posting police officers in schools are absolutely ridiculous. Is it going to fix everything & guarantee safety in schools? My guess is no more than places we already have police, or security guard presence. Banks, stores, office buildings, stuff still happen. Security measures are deterrence & damage control to me. It is absolutely better than nothing, but they are never perfect.

 

[arora]

This might be worth a look.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/after-newtown/

 

[Famine]

Out of interest, why does the President get armed guards but our kids don't?

 

[Slash]

Out of interest, why does the President get armed guards but our kids don't?

I always wondered this as well.

 

[a6m5]

Well, so many people threaten the President, but the kids? That one really caught the nation off guard.

As for the point that I think Famine's making, as ridiculous as the idea of having guards at school seems, this really isn't anything new. While this is a new type of threat, security threat in general is everyday occurrence & have existed for thousands of years.

I just remembered somebody mentioning the child abduction/abuse stuff in & around schools, too. Maybe Police presence in & around schools are what we need now. Nuts.

 

[Famine]

I just remembered somebody mentioning the child abduction/abuse stuff in & around schools, too. Maybe Police presence in & around schools are what we need now.

Oh, we solved this years ago.

What we do, right, is lock every entrance to the school buildings with coded doors or thumbprint scanners - locking all of the children in with the people second most likely to abuse them (after their families).

Of course locking children up so they don't get abused is a completely different concept to putting armed guards on the gates so they don't get shot by nutters because... errr... mumble mumble... thing. And it's completely fixed things. Oh yes.

 

[GranTurismo916]

Heard on the news about 1234564345645675 times yesterday...."The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Haha.

 

[a6m5]

Oh, we solved this years ago.

What we do, right, is lock every entrance to the school buildings with coded doors or thumbprint scanners - locking all of the children in with the people second most likely to abuse them (after their families).

Of course locking children up so they don't get abused is a completely different concept to putting armed guards on the gates so they don't get shot by nutters because... errr... mumble mumble... thing. And it's completely fixed things. Oh yes.

Point taken(I think lol), but nobody wants to hear that. Obama can't fix trade deficit, but he will fix this, which is really about social issues. Most people still can't make the connection between used car salesmen & politicians. Their priorities are not what they are telling you with such concern in their voice, but ohhh, they sound so convincing!

 

[photonrider]

We're talking child-abuse now? What strange twists and turns this discussion takes.

 

[Nicksfix]

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?

Which part is more terrifying, the thought of an armed guard walking around on the school grounds doing his job, which is to protect the students and teachers ? Or is it the thought of some crazed lunatic armed to the hilt with weapons going on a shooting spree inside of the school ?

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.

I don't see selfishness here. What I see is the NRA using the 2nd amendment to aid in the protection of innocent lives. It's called a level playing field.

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.


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?


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.

1. We have the same issues here in the States concerning kids coming from broken homes. How is it different ?

2. Over there you say that students bring knives to school. This is America, kids bring guns to school. Who here in there right mind brings a knife to a gun fight ?

3. Your not concerned for your personal safety because the kid is holding a knife, not a gun. There is a difference. If properly trained, you can easily dis-arm a knife yielder. It's not as easy with a gun toter. It's about the range ..... knife-up close hand to hand / gun - 10, 20, 30 or more feet. It's a little more difficult to handle in this given situation.

4. Armed guards at a school. I do not have a problem with that. Are you a parent ? If so, would it not make you a little more secure knowing that your child is under protection from an armed guard as opposed to being a target in a shooting spree ? An armed guard is seconds away to defer any attempts of a shooting. Police are minutes, possibly miles away, a lot can happen in those few precious minutes.

5. I'm in complete agreence with you as far as Adam Lanza is concerned. It was premeditated, right from the get go. Why was this not de-bunked though ? That's the big question. His mother, relatives knew of his condition. Why was no one alerted that some things were "per say" a little strange leading up this event ?

6. We do not know what would have happened if there were in fact an armed guard on duty at the school. Perhaps your right, Lanza kills the guard, then moves on. Perhaps your incorrect. Lanza stalks the guard, the trained guard being (ex military - police - CIA - FBI) see's what is unfolding, he takes Lanza out .... no shooting, no dead children, it's all good.

Famine has just asked the same question I did a couple of pages ago. Are your kids important to you, or are they just a number ?

Out of interest, why does the President get armed guards but our kids don't?

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 ?

Good discussion Prisonermonkeys. 👍

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

3. Your not concerned for your personal safety because the kid is holding a knife, not a gun. There is a difference. If properly trained, you can easily dis-arm a knife yielder.

This is completely wrong. I have had a lot of training in disarming someone wielding a knife and it is anything but easy, even with perfect technique and an ideal set-up/situation. 99% of the time you will receive deep cuts and, if you miss the one opportunity you have to get control of the knife you will likely be stabbed to death (if the person has real intent to kill). If the person with the knife is really determined you will never get control of it.

As i've said before, i'd rather disarm somebody with a gun in close-quarters than somebody with a knife.

 

[Rykon Zero]

I certainly wouldn't mind even a soldier or two (or more) stationed at my school. It'd certainly stop quite a bit of the drug dealing issue we've got.

 

[Nicksfix]

This is completely wrong. I have had a lot of training in disarming someone wielding a knife and it is anything but easy, even with perfect technique and an ideal set-up/situation. 99% of the time you will receive deep cuts and, if you miss the one opportunity you have to get control of the knife you will likely be stabbed to death (if the person has real intent to kill). If the person with the knife is really determined you will never get control of it.

As i've said before, i'd rather disarm somebody with a gun in close-quarters than somebody with a knife.

I have to differ. I too have had training in dis-arming a person wielding a weapon. Uncle Sam ... aka The United States Army. A knife is easier to dis-arm than a gun. A lot of this has to do with the perpetrator. One look at him and you can easily identify if in fact this person really knows how to use a knife ... correctly and effectively. Given the fact we are talking hand to hand combat against a wielder, a knife entry is harder to inflict since the perp has to physically have his hand free to inflict the stab into you. It becomes difficult for him to stab you if the both of you are involved in a hands on battle. This has now become a matter of strength and training. As said, most perps of a knife don't know how to correctly and effectively use the said weapon. Granted, if you identify a perp who is showing skills of proper effective knife usage, it may become a little more difficult. Hence your training. On the gun side, his finger is already on the trigger, a slight squeeze, a round goes off, it does not matter where the gun is aimed. A round in your foot, in your arm, in your stomach, you are going to release. It is human nature to do so, there are no real life Rambo's. You have released, he goes on to kill you. I'd rather square off with a knife perp than a gun perp.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

One look at him and you can easily identify if in fact this person really knows how to use a knife ... correctly and effectively.

Maybe, if you are willing to make assumptions that will put your life at risk. One of the first things you should learn when training in any combat sport or martial art is to never underestimate or make assumptions about your opponent - you know nothing about them and you shouldn't act like you do unless you want a nasty surprise. There is always someone bigger, stronger, tougher, more cunning, or downright desperate than you.

Given the fact we are talking hand to hand combat against a wielder, a knife entry is harder to inflict since the perp has to physically have his hand free to inflict the stab into you. It becomes difficult for him to stab you if the both of you are involved in a hands on battle. This has now become a matter of strength and training.

A gunman has to physically have his hand(s) free to shoot you too (he can't aim at you if you have two hands controlling where the gun is aiming). It becomes difficult for him to shoot you if the both of you are involved in a hands on battle. If the gunman can still point his gun at you after you have closed with him, you aren't following what you were taught in training.

The most important part of disarming someone is gaining control over the weapon, if you fail to do this immediately upon closing the distance and your attacker has full intent to kill you, you are dead.

On the gun side, his finger is already on the trigger, a slight squeeze, a round goes off, it does not matter where the gun is aimed. A round in your foot, in your arm, in your stomach, you are going to release. It is human nature to do so, there are no real life Rambo's. You have released, he goes on to kill you. I'd rather square off with a knife perp than a gun perp.

As above, if the gun is still pointing at you, you aren't following your training, so his finger being on the trigger is irrelevant. Also, a gun requires the attacker to consciously react and pull the trigger to do harm (with the exception of negligent discharges) - a knife doesn't, it doesn't require a button to be pressed to make it sharp and it takes years of neglect for it to 'run out' of sharpness.

I've seen many people grit their teeth and walk off after being shot non-fatally, including a friends helmet cam footage of another friend getting shot in the calf by an AK in Afghanistan, and him hobbling back to better cover. He was clearly in pain, but was even laughing about the ribbing he was being given for getting shot.

You don't need to be Rambo, you just need an adrenaline rush to mask the pain. This goes for knives and guns - a fatal wound is a fatal wound regardless of what inflicted it. A non-fatal but excruciatingly painful wound can be worked through, especially in the high-adrenaline, life-or-death situation we are talking about here.

If your training taught you that disarming somebody with a knife is easily accomplished then, put simply, it was terrible training. A knife is just as dangerous as a gun, and if you seriously think that somebody shouldn't fear for their safety because they are being threatened with a knife rather than a gun then you need to do some thinking.

 

[hogger129]

What happened was very sad to say the least. But the issue here isn't guns. The solution isn't to remove guns from the hands of the law abiding, or to make it more difficult for the law abiding to get them. The answer is to address mental instability and for people to take responsibility for their safety. Guns didn't cause it. Violent video games didn't cause it. Mental instability and a nut job caused it. Plus I think there is a link between the anti-depressant drugs many of these types have been on, and their violent behavior.

Don't forget, this Lanza nut was denied three times when trying to purchase. He got his by breaking the law against stealing and murder.

The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. "Arms" are firearms. I do not see anything defining what kind of arms, or a "sporting purpose" clause in the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Nicksfix]

And now a $100 million dollar suit has been filed.

A $100 million claim on behalf of a 6-year-old survivor is the first legal action to come out of the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 children and adults dead two weeks ago.

The unidentified client, referred to as Jill Doe, heard "cursing, screaming, and shooting" over the school intercom when the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, opened fire, according to the claim filed by New Haven-based attorney Irv Pinsky.

"As a consequence, the ... child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined," the claim said.

Pinsky said he filed a claim on Thursday with state Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., whose office must give permission before a lawsuit can be filed against the state.

"We all know its going to happen again," Pinsky said on Friday. "Society has to take action."

Twenty children and six adults were shot dead on December 14 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The children were all 6 and 7 years old.

Pinsky's claim said that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from "foreseeable harm."

It said they had failed to provide a "safe school setting" or design "an effective student safety emergency response plan and protocol."

Pinsky said he was approached by the child's parents within a week of the shooting.

The shooting, which also left the gunman dead, has prompted extensive debate about gun control and the suggestion by the National Rifle Association that schools be patrolled by armed guards. Police have said the gunman killed his mother at their home in Newtown before going to the school.

 

[Exorcet]

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.

Well, going buy the calls I've received from them, I'd say that some fraction of the NRA is crazy.

But I don't think the idea that to the NRA "my right to own a gun is more important than the right of everyone else's child to live" holds much water. I don't think anyone in the NRA believes giving up the second amendment would ever keep this from happening. I don't think most people who seriously consider the issue believe that either, no matter what group they do or don't belong to.

But yeah, going back to what I've said before, I don't listen to the NRA because most of what they say is the opposite of the kneejerkers who want all guns to be insta-banned and think it will bring world peace. Opposite as in equally illogical, but pushing for a different end.

 

[Lock2Lock]

Well, going buy the calls I've received from them, I'd say that some fraction of the NRA is crazy.

But I don't think the idea that to the NRA "my right to own a gun is more important than the right of everyone else's child to live" holds much water. I don't think anyone in the NRA believes giving up the second amendment would ever keep this from happening. I don't think most people who seriously consider the issue believe that either, no matter what group they do or don't belong to.

But yeah, going back to what I've said before, I don't listen to the NRA because most of what they say is the opposite of the kneejerkers who want all guns to be insta-banned and think it will bring world peace. Opposite as in equally illogical, but pushing for a different end.

Actually we should (we as in our stupid US government) to the NRA.

The NRA has been pushing for more a harder way to obtain guns for a very long time. Also blaming the NRA for this is like blaming a car for someone that kills someone drinking and driving (don't even say it isn't the same senaryo in this school shooting).

Also if the 2nd amendment goes away. Think about it what will be the positives.... Oh wait there isn't a positive about it.
Common sense....
1. There will still be and always illegally obtained guns
2. And most importantly if the government gets rid of the 2nd amendment Hummmm what is that opening up too.... Think about it look at the big picture. If they do that then wouldn't be easier for them to get rid of other parts of our constitution? The answer is yes. If anyone thinks it wouldn't then they are in denial. Sorry

 

[Tesla]

And now a $100 million dollar suit has been filed.

Welcome to America, where hearing "cursing, screaming, and shooting" is apparently enough to warrant $100 million but the parents of the actual victims who lost their lives haven't asked for anything like that. Disgusting on their part to try and take advantage of a situation like this. Money doesn't make any trauma caused go away, proper therapy and counselling does - which I imagine would be covered by the state or a health fund out of goodwill.