PDA

View Full Version : CT school shooting: 20 kids 6 adults dead..



Pages : [1] 2 3

whirlerz
12-14-2012, 06:16 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1:'(

pinups4
12-14-2012, 10:37 PM
First, let's not forget the point of this thread, and of our prayers now are the families. Of the victims, of the survivors, and of the shooter. yes, the shooter's family. They not only lost their son today, but have to live forever with the horrible things he did. There is no going on after that for many people.

Now on to the gun control issue. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. More today than any day before. But i believe that guns should only be sold if you show you are qualified to use them. The founding fathers lived in an era where everyone had guns, daddy taught you to shoot, and it was a ball-and-powder weapon at best.

Just because it's a right, doesn't mean we don't want you to be educated on the proper use of that right. I see nowhere in the Constitution that it limits or prevents gun training or similar. Just that we have "the right to bear arms". Not what steps need to be taken to exercise that right.

If qualified, trained people (that is, qualified and licensed on a range by professionals) had been carrying guns at the scene maybe the shooter would have gone down sooner. (not sure I'm in favor of teachers having guns, but school security maybe? Administration? Unknown.)

GUNS DO NOT KILL. People with issues or motives do.

There are ONLY 7,000 homicides by gun annually in the US. Tiny, tiny percentage.

Kellydancer
12-14-2012, 10:45 PM
This is such a tragedy and it bothers me. I don't have kids but do teach religious ed to 1st graders and the idea of someone shooting them horrifies me.

Pinups, you are going to get the "ban gun always" wackos saying you are wrong but you are not. I too am a believer in the 2nd Amendment and do not believe guns should be outlawed. However, I want people to know how to properly shoot them and worry about the wrong people getting them, but then again these people usually get them through illegal ways.

There is a special place in hell for kid murderers.

pinups4
12-14-2012, 10:50 PM
I also believe if you hurt an innocent (kid, woman, old person, etc.) and go to jail, no "special protection" for you. Suck a dick or 30 and see how you like being someone else's victim. Why should I pay twice as much to keep your cruel ass warm, dry and safe?

Kellydancer
12-14-2012, 10:52 PM
I'm even crueler than that. In my sick and twisted mind pedophiles and child murderers would wear a sign stating they raped or killed a kid in general population. The inmates would take care of them because inmates who hurt kids are at the bottom of the scale.

pinups4
12-14-2012, 11:02 PM
I'm even crueler than that. In my sick and twisted mind pedophiles and child murderers would wear a sign stating they raped or killed a kid in general population. The inmates would take care of them because inmates who hurt kids are at the bottom of the scale.

Sure. I'll personally buy the special uniforms or whatever.

in exchange, I want 20 minutes alone with each of them. I promise, no one will die.

Smurfette
12-14-2012, 11:15 PM
Very sad. Stuff like this hits me particularly hard since I have two small kids of my own. It's impossible not to wonder, "What if that was my child?"

I imagine this thread is gonna go hog wild with the gun control debate, and I don't really feel like being a part of it. All I can say is that there is a reason why these massacres happen so often in the US, and it's glaringly obvious to outside observers.

Will
12-15-2012, 01:53 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1:'(

Horrible, disgusting, and f-ing depressing event. A sad reminder of the times we live in.

We guard our money with armed men and our children with signs and words.

Priorities of the damned.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/gun-free-zone.jpg

Will
12-15-2012, 02:08 PM
Very sad. Stuff like this hits me particularly hard since I have two small kids of my own. It's impossible not to wonder, "What if that was my child?"

I imagine this thread is gonna go hog wild with the gun control debate,

Only because people make goofy comments like that...Lets keep it to the actual topic so it does not.



and I don't really feel like being a part of it. All I can say is that there is a reason why these massacres happen so often in the US, and it's glaringly obvious to outside observers.

Clearly, it's about controlling guns. Same day in a different country:

Villager slashes 22 kids with knife at elementary school gates in China
By NBC News wire reports

BEIJING -- A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, the latest in a series of attacks on children in the country.

The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.

Ax-wielding man kills 3 kids, wounds 13 in China

There have been a series of attacks on schools and children around China in recent years.

Some were carried out by people who have lost their jobs or felt left out of the country's economic boom.

The rash of violence has prompted public calls for more measures to protect the young in a country where many couples only have one child.

There was a particular string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.

In one incident that year, a man slashed 28 children, two teachers and a security guard in a kindergarten in eastern China.

Notes:

People suck
Guns, knives, cars, and other devices can and will be used to kill people (think Timothy McVeigh, etc) and the tool not the issue
The US is a violent society
Guarding your money with armed men and your children with signs and words = priorities of the damned

Back to the scheduled programming...thread does not need to be, not should it be, turned into a gun thread pro or con, but such comments you made bait people to respond. Please don't do that.

RIP children :'(

Almost Jaded
12-15-2012, 06:25 PM
This wasn't a nutjob who owned guns. It was a mentally unstable autistic with serious problems. The guns used were registered to his mother. This is a tragedy that could have been avoided many different ways, like many others.

As for the gun debate, it doesn't matter. The same small minds that ban foods for making people fat ban guns for what the people holding them do. Mass murderers aren't the only lunatics.

pinups4
12-16-2012, 07:44 PM
Those fuckers at Westboro Baptist Church (which as far as I can tell has no idea what God wants) are going to picket the funerals of the innocents who died at Sandy Hook. Can we get some CT area strong men to stand and make sure the nutcases are kept far away from the greiving families?

also, I support Morgan Freeman's suggestion - NO MORE should the names of these murderers be mentioned. Let the Slime die in anonymity as they would have if their psychoses had called for a suicide in Mom's basement. They're slime and should be forgotten...not memorialized forever.

Kellydancer
12-16-2012, 10:07 PM
I am a Christian but if I heard someone massacred the Westboro nuts I wouldn't be upset. Those people are not Christians.

Almost Jaded
12-16-2012, 11:10 PM
Um... Why are the Westboro's picketing these people's funerals? Not soldiers, not gay, etc - wtf..? And don't worry - once the fact that they're going to be there gets to Anon, they'll be a non-factor. nless the bikers or KKK get to it first, lol.

NaughtyNattie
12-17-2012, 12:14 AM
This is such a tragedy! I could not help but to cry, and all of a sudden had this craving to just touch and hold my children when I saw it. They, of course being teenagers, thought I was nuts for checking them out of school early and just hanging onto them, but who cares? These poor families will never get that opportunity again. It just hurts my soul that someone could be capable of such despicable violence against children! :'(

Almost Jaded
12-17-2012, 01:21 AM
Something CONSTRUCTIVE. Wonder if it'll get any attention?

Jessica1001
12-17-2012, 05:53 AM
Clearly, it's about controlling guns. Same day in a different country:

[I]Villager slashes 22 kids with knife at elementary school gates in China
By NBC News wire reports

BEIJING -- A knife-wielding man slashed 22 children and an adult at an elementary school in central China on Friday, state media reported, [B]the latest in a series of attacks on children in the country.

The man attacked the children at the gate of a school in Chenpeng village in Henan province, the Xinhua news agency reported.

Police arrested a 36-year-old man, identified as villager Min Yingjun, Xinhua said. It did not give further details of the extent of the injuries.


It should be noted that every single one of the children hurt in that knife assault SURVIVED.

Jessica1001
12-17-2012, 06:05 AM
Something CONSTRUCTIVE. Wonder if it'll get any attention?

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother


Thanks for posting that. The conversation would be incomplete without this perspective.

No easy answers, that's for sure. :-/

Will
12-17-2012, 07:37 AM
It should be noted that every single one of the children hurt in that knife assault SURVIVED.

Do we have a source for that? I just says he "slashed" them. I was not able to find any hard numbers in terms of death or lack there of. If they all lived, GREAT. But that he was not very good with his knife not relevant. Lots of deaths due to these attacks happening in China, and $5 worth of gas was used to kill 87 people in NY NY in the happy land fires, and so forth. Crazy D Bag (I think using their name only gives them more power even in death) killed approx 250 people with an easy to make bomb if you recall.... Most kids killed to date on an attack on a school, no guns involved BTW. Tool/weapon of choice can be cultural and availability, but find a tool/weapon they will. Here's an article written by someone with real expertise on the topic (vs politicians, media, and "don't confuse me with facts type"), Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who has great respect by law enforcement, military, etc for his thoughts on these events:

Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial (http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/)
Preventing juvenile mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers, and concerned parents

Me, I don't want feel good BS measures like "gun free zone" signs and laws passed that will do jack shit to actually prevent this type of thing from happening. I want REAL action now that will indeed great reduce the potential for these events (saying eliminate would be fantasy and more denial) and sooner people take their head out of the sand (eg, their state of denial) sooner their children will be FAR safer than they are now.

Will
12-17-2012, 07:39 AM
Thanks for posting that. The conversation would be incomplete without this perspective.

No easy answers, that's for sure. :-/

I was going to post that one too. An excellent article and where money and effort needs to be placed. We do a horrible job on this country f dealing with the mentally ill and mental illness, but addressing that takes time, $$$, and commitment, and we seem to be very short on that at the moment. :(

Smurfette
12-17-2012, 10:50 AM
The solution is so obvious, guys... The best way to cure our violent, bloodthirsty, fame-obsessed, gun-obsessed society is to allow everyone to have massive arsenals of guns and to make sure everyone's always packing heat in public, so they'll always be ready to put the Jack Bauer moves on any thugs or psychos who happen to strike! There is no possible way that this could backfire.

Will
12-17-2012, 11:09 AM
The solution is so obvious, guys... The best way to cure our violent, bloodthirsty, fame-obsessed, gun-obsessed society is to allow everyone to have massive arsenals of guns and to make sure everyone's always packing heat in public, so they'll always be ready to put the Jack Bauer moves on any thugs or psychos who happen to strike! There is no possible way that this could backfire.

Posted on ClassicFirearms:

" Connecticut footnote: About 30 miles from Newtown, CT. is another small town, Cheshire, Ct. In July 2007 two convicted felons invaded the home of Dr. Wm. Petit. They bludgeoned him with a baseball bat, raped and strangled his wife, raped their two daughters and then tied them to their beds and burned them alive in the house. They were defenseless. At that time everyone in Connecticut, and anyone else who heard of this, wanted a gun. And sales skyrocketed. Many people who were anti-gun changed their minds and bought home defense shotguns. We all have very short memories."

I remember the above well, as it happened one state over from me: (1) guns are not a "solution" they are a fundamental right of free people and have both pos/neg uses in a free society... (2) I'll take everyone being armed to the teeth over being a sitting duck with no ability to defend myself (3) you're obviously not well read on the hard data that has shown consistently, where law abiding citizens can defend themselves, crime goes DOWN. Deal with it. (4) The US Const. Deal with it.

I'd recommend to keep this thread from going downhill fast, more actual facts, data, and history used, vs knee jerk emotional rhetoric.

Smurfette
12-17-2012, 12:28 PM
Posted on ClassicFirearms:

" Connecticut footnote: About 30 miles from Newtown, CT. is another small town, Cheshire, Ct. In July 2007 two convicted felons invaded the home of Dr. Wm. Petit. They bludgeoned him with a baseball bat, raped and strangled his wife, raped their two daughters and then tied them to their beds and burned them alive in the house. They were defenseless. At that time everyone in Connecticut, and anyone else who heard of this, wanted a gun. And sales skyrocketed. Many people who were anti-gun changed their minds and bought home defense shotguns. We all have very short memories."

I might be inclined to buy a gun if this happened in my community too. Very scary. However, there is absolutely no way to prove that this crime could've been prevented if they had a gun in their home. Especially if it happened in the middle of the night (I don't know the details so I may be wrong). The element of surprise can be very powerful, and combine that with the grogginess of sleep and it's hard to say whether or not a shotgun would've helped. An alarm system probably would have worked just as well, if not better. I have an alarm system in my home and it makes me feel very secure. I can't picture any criminals sticking around to rape/murder/steal when there are loud-ass sirens blaring and cops on their way.



I remember the above well, as it happened one state over from me: (1) guns are not a "solution" they are a fundamental right of free people and have both pos/neg uses in a free society...

I never said they weren't a right. I don't think all guns should be banned and I literally NEVER hear anyone advocating for that, in the media or otherwise. But it's not all or nothing, either. I do think that there should be more reasonable restrictions placed on gun ownership, not that guns should be banned altogether.


(2) I'll take everyone being armed to the teeth over being a sitting duck with no ability to defend myself

Doesn't have to be all or nothing here either. I think you should be able to defend yourself. But arming everyone to the teeth is a recipe for disaster. People are stupid, and assuming that everyone with a gun is responsible enough to train & educate themselves properly (and their family too) is foolish. Putting a handgun in someone's hand will not magically turn them into a perfect Jack Bauer-like vigilante. Real life situations are much more complicated, and an armed citizen placed in a dangerous situation will be subject to nerves, shock, confusion, panic, the element of surprise, etc. Not saying that they couldn't help, but you do have to look at things realistically. Even trained cops make mistakes... case in point: the recent New York shooting, where 9 civilians were injured by cops in a gunfight.


(3) you're obviously not well read on the hard data that has shown consistently, where law abiding citizens can defend themselves, crime goes DOWN. Deal with it.

This is arguable. I could find dozens of studies to link to, but I feel like it's all pointless because any study with a conclusion that you don't agree with you'll accuse of having a liberal bias.


(4) The US Const. Deal with it.

That's fine, and I do think the 2nd Amendment should be respected. However, I'm bothered by the way a lot of people look at the Constitution and the founding fathers. The latter are treated like demi-Gods and the Constitution is treated like a sacred infallible document bestowed upon us from God above. The Constitution is a living document and was purposely written vaguely so that it could be amended to adapt to changing times. Gun ownership is a right, yes, but it's supposed to be a well-regulated right, not a free for all.


I'd recommend to keep this thread from going downhill fast, more actual facts, data, and history used, vs knee jerk emotional rhetoric.

I agree, and I do apologize for my sarcasm, but it should apply both ways, too. I'd prefer not to be called a "lunatic" because I have a different opinion than you. edit: I know you specifically didn't say that.

Will
12-17-2012, 01:05 PM
I might be inclined to buy a gun if this happened in my community too. Very scary. However, there is absolutely no way to prove that this crime could've been prevented if they had a gun in their home. Especially if it happened in the middle of the night (I don't know the details so I may be wrong). The element of surprise can be very powerful, and combine that with the grogginess of sleep and it's hard to say whether or not a shotgun would've helped. An alarm system probably would have worked just as well, if not better. I have an alarm system in my home and it makes me feel very secure. I can't picture any criminals sticking around to rape/murder/steal when there are loud-ass sirens blaring and cops on their way.

Again, we have both stats and "real world" experience where yes, it made all the difference. No, nothing promise to save you 100% of the time, nothing. That's why you look at large scale effects vs n=1 examples per se.




I never said they weren't a right. I don't think all guns should be banned and I literally NEVER hear anyone advocating for that, in the media or otherwise. But it's not all or nothing, either. I do think that there should be more reasonable restrictions placed on gun ownership, not that guns should be banned altogether.

Then you may want to pay more attention to who is saying what: :

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html

"reasonable" restrictions? I'm all for it. However, "reasonable" is laws that impact criminals, not law abiding. Current laws impact law abiding (because, well they tend to follow laws) and not criminals (because they don't ten to follow laws...shocker I know), so my version of "reasonable" probably will not be be yours. Most laws proposed are neither logical, "reasonable" or make any sense and will have no impact on crime, or will raise it. Again, have you read the actual data? Didn't think so....




Doesn't have to be all or nothing here either. I think you should be able to defend yourself. But arming everyone to the teeth is a recipe for disaster. People are stupid, and assuming that everyone with a gun is responsible enough to train & educate themselves properly (and their family too) is foolish. Putting a handgun in someone's hand will not magically turn them into a perfect Jack Bauer-like vigilante. Real life situations are much more complicated, and an armed citizen placed in a dangerous situation will be subject to nerves, shock, confusion, panic, the element of surprise, etc. Not saying that they couldn't help, but you do have to look at things realistically. Even trained cops make mistakes... case in point: the recent New York shooting, where 9 civilians were injured by cops in a gunfight.

Spoken by someone (a) has no actual knowledge of guns and (b) has not read any of the actual data that exists. I'd drop a link to read, but I suspect you didn't read any of the others I or others supplied and clearly ignore some essential points made, etc.


We guard our money will well armed men and our children with "gun free zone" signs. If that's does not bother, if you see nothing wrong with that, if you think removing the guns would prevent similar events (such as I already outlined...), then you seriously live in denial and a fantasy land. If others with your mindset continue on that path of denial, expect more such events in the future.

Regarding the safety of YOUR CHILDREN, do you want that to come from politicians and people with zero knowledge of the topic, or professionals who spend their lives advising on that type of thing? I know who I want to get my advice from, so once again, I will direct you to the article Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, linked above for solid into how to prevent future events among other issues that need to be addressed (see excellent article already posted from mother of child with mental illness above!)

I know you mean well, I really do, but your concern is placed in the wrong spot, and you should be furious with the fact your children are placed in harms way because budgets don't allow for proper security at schools while we give BILLIONS away to forign countries.

roast
12-17-2012, 01:24 PM
everywhere on the internet people are saying what they wouldve done, what should be done, tsk tsking at the principal for not being armed, for the schoolnot having proper precautions against a rare and "no one ever would anticipate this happening" event... all from the comforts from their own homes, watching news reports and generating ideas well after a sudden, abrupt and very rapid violent tragedy.

The principal who people keep blaming: was murdered. She died. All of her social networking presence was devoted to these kids, her life was so devoted to community building and service up until then. Indirectly blaming her and her school's administration is so disrespectful. She, btw, was murdered and caught unaware by a bulletproof vested person armed to the teeth with semiautomatics on a weekday morning. A person whose first victim was a well-armed gunowner. Yea, let's indirectly blame her.

There were real heroes that day. all of this grandstanding overshadows the real heroes and the people who sacrificed their own lives to help out one another: which is a rare phenomenon (bystander effect is very very real).

5 year olds huddling their friends together to get out the door. teachers ensuring their whole room was accounted for before running out the door. administrative staff doing their best to alert everyone. people waiting for each other. law enforcement having to count and identify bodies of children. children reminding other children to keep quiet in closets, children and adults consoling one another within the vicinity of the building instead of just fleeing the scene like most people would do.

real people who actually did do something. they did very impactful community-conscious things. all of this victim blaming (that is what it is) and hindsight rationalizations are condescending and tedious. there are 6 year olds who basically endured real warlike combat and will have PTSD for life because of this. they still helped out their friends as best as they could.

all this 'let me tell you internets' squabbling overshadows and discounts that there were real heroes that day. and many if not all of them will be forgotten in the narcissism of debates, google searches of the constitution, and grandstanding.

Those people's families are stuck rebuilding a broken community, and all of them will be present day in and day out dealing with the discomfort and pain - and worse people nitpicking and borderline accusing them. They cant just enrage online or in person in the comforts of their own homes embroiled in a theoretical discussion.

Children and adults did do something meaningful and important that day in ways that should not be overshadowed by armchair hindsight.

MargaritaVillain
12-17-2012, 04:02 PM
^perfect

Smurfette
12-17-2012, 04:44 PM
We guard our money will well armed men and our children with "gun free zone" signs. If that's does not bother, if you see nothing wrong with that, if you think removing the guns would prevent similar events (such as I already outlined...), then you seriously live in denial and a fantasy land. If others with your mindset continue on that path of denial, expect more such events in the future.

Regarding the safety of YOUR CHILDREN, do you want that to come from politicians and people with zero knowledge of the topic, or professionals who spend their lives advising on that type of thing? I know who I want to get my advice from, so once again, I will direct you to the article Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, linked above for solid into how to prevent future events among other issues that need to be addressed (see excellent article already posted from mother of child with mental illness above!)

I read both articles. It's not a bad idea to train teachers to make them better prepared to deal with school shootings, just like they practice fire drills. I don't want teachers to carry guns. I'm sorry, but guns don't belong in the classroom. That shit is reserved for warzones and third world countries, not the US. The fact that people are even entertaining the IDEA that teachers should be packing heat is just ridiculous to me and speaks volumes about the state of our society.

Mental health care in the US is a joke and needs to be fixed if tragedies like this are to be prevented in the future. However you did say a few posts up that "addressing that takes time, $$$, and commitment, and we seem to be very short on that at the moment." which seems to insinuate to me that it can't be dealt with, that it's not important enough because it might involve increased funding. But it's yet another example of a failing system ravaged by spending cuts. One where neglect has caused very real, very tragic consequences.

BTW I've noticed a logical inconsistency between what you've said here and the points you made in that thread you posted the other day "putting things in perspective". It's true that violence in the US has been going down, yet people think it's going up. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx

I'm not sure about your claim that school violence is actually going down as well, but I'll take your word for it. If this is true, why are you arguing for guns in school? If this is all just the media blowing things out of proportion, why do we need to protect our children by arming teachers? What's the use for that, if violent crime in schools is going down?

You claim that the media is brainwashing us into believing that guns are evil. I actually see this as the media scare-mongering, feeding our paranoid delusions, making us think that schools and society at large are more dangerous than they really are, and as a consequence we feel we need more guns to protect ourselves.



I know you mean well, I really do, but your concern is placed in the wrong spot, and you should be furious with the fact your children are placed in harms way because budgets don't allow for proper security at schools while we give BILLIONS away to forign countries.

Give billions away to foreign countries that we blew up? Or are you talking about the 1% of the budget that goes to international affairs? I'm much more outraged at the ridiculous amount of money going into our bloated military when it could be reinvested back into the local economy, and funding things like mental health care.

BTW why are school budgets so low? who is making these cuts to education? ...Oh.

Will
12-17-2012, 05:27 PM
I read both articles. It's not a bad idea to train teachers to make them better prepared to deal with school shootings, just like they practice fire drills. I don't want teachers to carry guns. I'm sorry, but guns don't belong in the classroom.

Then allow the kids to be slaughtered at the will of any crazy with a gun, a knife, a can of gas, etc. in those "gun free zones." Your choice, your kids. Again, that's the difference between the real world as it actually is, vs those with chronic "head in sand syndrome" prefer to lead their lives in la la land of good intentions and "no bad guy" signs on the door. Me, if a teacher is licensed to carry, I'd encourage them to do so vs make it illegal to do so as is the current state and would welcome it as a parent knowing at least a few people at the school were armed. As we know the data supports an armed response, regardless of who does it, is better than no response at all, and NO, the cops can't and will not get their in time, and again, we know that already. For example

See:


Media blackout: Oregon mall shooter was stopped by an armed citizen (http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen?cid=rss)

More examples very few people know about because the media REFUSES to cover that fact an armed response by a civilian can and will stop sch events and happens FAR more often than people realize:

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon

The above happens FAR more often than you know and there's published data that again supports that real world experience that armed civilians or whom ever happens to be there and respond, can make the difference in the outcome.

And:

Written by a professor I know after VT Tech:

"A terrible tragedy. I know, I teach on college campus.

Once he starts to act, the only thing that can stop a single, psychotic killer who is willing to die is the rapid delivery of counter fire by whoever is near. Cop, civilian, it doesn't matter who or their job status. The more people who are nearby and capable of delivering return fire, the fewer and less serious the injuries (there's criminological data on this).

Virginia Tech. is a "gun free" zone guaranteeing that the psychotic killer had the only gun. He came prepared. He waited until there were no police in sight and then commenced his murderous acts certain that he would encounter no effective resistance. And , he didn't.

Over 30 innocent dead because there was no one capable of fighting back. All they could do was cower or run."


- Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M., Hamline University School of Law


However, I do appreciate (vs agree nor understand) you and others not being comfortable with that idea, and (I hope) we agree that no security other than signs is not a solution that appears to be working. One model:

98,817 public schools in the US as of 2010. Two men at $60,000/man per school = ~$12,000,000,000 per year.

Make it $120,000/man/per school and the cost doubles to ~$24B.

We give that much in FOREIGN aid to shithole countries, every single year. Why not divert funds from some of these programs and fund a new security model for every public school in the country?

That would be a start if we really give a damn about our children.





That shit is reserved for warzones and third world countries, not the US.


OK, tell that to those 20+ dead kids. What you are, like so many, is in a serious state of denial, that's costing lives. Sorry to be harsh, but what's right in your face, you still can't see it appears.



The fact that people are even entertaining the IDEA that teachers should be packing heat is just ridiculous to me and speaks volumes about the state of our society.

Mental health care in the US is a joke and needs to be fixed if tragedies like this are to be prevented in the future. However you did say a few posts up that "addressing that takes time, $$$, and commitment, and we seem to be very short on that at the moment." which seems to insinuate to me that it can't be dealt with,


It can't and wont be dealt with until people have a MAJOR paradigm shift, pull their heads out of their ass, and set their priorities in order. Again, listen to those who do it for a living and know it inside and out (Grossman, etc) who can make the difference vs wishful thinking, "it can't happen here" attitudes, what you think you know about guns, and politicians with agendas who don't have a clue what they are talking about and walk around with armed security while kids get "come kill us as this is a gun free zone" f-ing signs.



that it's not important enough because it might involve increased funding. But it's yet another example of a failing system ravaged by spending cuts. One that neglect has caused very real, very tragic consequences.

BTW I've noticed a logical inconsistency between what you've said here and the points you made in that thread you posted the other day "putting things in perspective". It's true that violence in the US has been going down, yet people think it's going up. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx

I'm not sure about your claim that school violence is actually going down as well, but I'll take your word for it. If this is true, why are you arguing for guns in school?


Because although the total numbers appear to be going down (or at least were), these types of events can be prevented or greatly reduced with appropriate measures, and one of them is to have an armed response as fast as possible. Or, keep head in sand, "this can't be happening in the US" and allows children to be slaughtered.



If this is all just the media blowing things out of proportion, why do we need to protect our children by arming teachers? What's the use for that, if violent crime in schools is going down?


See above, and my beef is as much with the media being part of the problem in terms of driving these nuts to want their 15 minutes of fame. An interesting vid that's telling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PezlFNTGWv4



You claim that the media is brainwashing us into believing that guns are evil. I actually see this as the media scare-mongering, feeding our paranoid delusions, making us think that schools and society at large are more dangerous than they really are, and as a consequence we feel we need more guns to protect ourselves.

I'd say that too is a fair assessment of the situation.




Give billions away to foreign countries that we blew up? Or are you talking about the 1% of the budget that goes to international affairs? I'm much more outraged at the ridiculous amount of money going into our bloated military when it could be reinvested back into the local economy, and funding things like mental health care.


I agree with that too. Yes, our priorities are in need to serious adjustment and getting to really dealing with and funding mental illness and essential component of long term strategy to reducing these events.



BTW why are school budgets so low? who is making these cuts to education? ...Oh.

Agreed! This did not make me happy either:

Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse (http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure)

Kellydancer
12-17-2012, 05:33 PM
Smurfette, a question but what do you mean about cutting the military. Do you mean things like getting out of Afghanistan (which I agree with)or things like cutting salaries for the soldiers (I don't want this to happen). Too many people will say something like "I want the military budget cut" but often they just say this without thinking. I am not singling you out and I'm sure you probably mean the wars but too often people just say it.

Here's part of the problem, and that is mental illness is not taken seriously. My moronic idiotic governor decided to cut funding for mental illness programs instead of where it should be cut (such as welfare for illegals and welfare queens). He even wants to close several mental hospitals, which might cause more societal problems. Obviously not all mentally ill are dangerous but some are, especially if faced with what they think is danger.

I too want to cut ALL foreign aid. I am tired of giving other countries money while people in this country suffer. We have poor people unable to get breaks while we give the money to other countries. The sick part is many of these countries are actually wealthier than the US, why are we giving them money?

Yes the media is pushing an anti gun agenda. I keep seeing them interview all these people who want to eliminate guns. The reality is eliminating guns will cause these people to find other weapons and of course buying them illegally.

Almost Jaded
12-17-2012, 07:56 PM
I don't want teachers to carry guns. I'm sorry, but guns don't belong in the classroom. That shit is reserved for warzones and third world countries, not the US. The fact that people are even entertaining the IDEA that teachers should be packing heat is just ridiculous to me and speaks volumes about the state of our society.

Not to pick on you smurfette, you just provided the perfect quote to bring the anti-gun crowd under a convenient banner.

eagle, loveshooks, roat, smurfette - you've been the most vocal of teh anti-gun people in these discussions. So I would like to ask you - what is your experience with firearms? Have you ever handled one AT ALL? If so - more than once? Learned how to use and handle them, maintain them, etc? My guess is no. I don't know a single person that knows ANYTHING about firearms that feels like that quote above. At a party this weekend, I brought my new 1911 to show a couple of our friends who knew I picked it up. Opened the case, dropped the mag, checked that the chamber was clear, and handed it across the table. The reactions around the table were fascinating. Several people actually recoiled away from teh table like there was a live grenade in front of them. Magazine dropped, chamber clear - any one of those people could have picked up their steak knife or fork and been better armed and more dangerous than this useless lump of metal in that condition. And yet, when my friend took it and closed the slide, two people FLINCHED. For what? I told him "dude - feel the trigger on that thing, it's awesome." One lady freaked on me - "how can you tell him to pull the trigger in a crowded area?!!!" Seriously? He did. "click". I think 2 of them shit themselves.

Why that story? People are scared of things they don't know. If all you know about guns is movies and TV and stories from the news - well shit - of course you don't want them in your schools. They're scary evil death-dealing devices and everyone near anyone who carries one is in danger!! Aaaaahh!!

Guys, I don't know how to tell you this other than to put it straight out there. You're acting out of ignorance. Ignorance, naivety, fear, denial - and more. You say we sound like "gun obsessed wanna-be vigilantes" (quote from another board I'm arguing on, a nice summation), but WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!! All the scary stories and accidents you hear about, all the horrible stories... You realize that those are like, such a tiny fraction that it defies measurement, right? Ever hear the phrase "In other news, 270 million OTHER guns didn't kill anyone today?" We use it a lot. It's accurate. If you applied the same logic to cars that you do to guns - OMG, that's like, laughable. Gun accidents are one in over 100,000 owners. Violent uses are even less than that unless you count violent criminals with illegal weapon, gangs, etc - which is kind of the point, right? I mean, they're going to have them, so we shouldn't? Cars accidents are 1 in TWO. HALF of all owners will have at least one accident. Cut that to serious accidents with injuries and/or death - STILL MORE THAN 10X THE NUMBERS FROM GUNS. Know what else? Cars are used to kill people too. When that lady backed over her husband SEVEN TIMES, where were the cries to ban cars? To carefully screen owners for emotional problems? To deny licenses to people with a history of domestic violence or with warrants? Hmm. Weird. What if she'd shot him? Once even, not even 7x. Yup - suddenly the TOOL is the problem, not the person. Run over him with a car - crazy person. Shoot them - THE GUN MADE THEM DO IT!!!!!!!!!!

Guns aren't bad. They aren't even really dangerous - far less so than many things you handle and operate every day. Are you scred to walk into a Bank of America because there are armed guards there? Are children raised on or near military bases in danger because there are weapons ALL AROUND THEM? Parents who send their kids to military school should be charged with child endangerment!! C'mon. Stop being afraid of a piece of metal. Learn about firearms. God forbid - GO SHOOTING. Than get back to us. Right now... Paint us as crazy or backward or redneck or whatever you want, but the 2A crowd in these debates are NOT the ones talking out of our asses. We know what we're talking about. YOU. DO. NOT.

Dirty Ernie
12-17-2012, 09:06 PM
One certainty to come out of this will be a new assault weapon ban bill from Sen. Feinstein's office. Can it pass the House? I don't know, but there seems to be a shift in public sentiment for something to be done, probably due to the age of the victims. Congress will feel the need to do something and this will be the easiest. They may be able to get something through to limit magazine capacity and close the gun show loophole.

The gun lobby has wisely gone silent. No pro-gun Republican members of Congress were available for the Sunday shows. The NRA has gone dark on Facebook and Twitter.

Almost Jaded
12-17-2012, 09:51 PM
The NRA's Facebook and Twitter were hacked. Just for the record.

Dirty Ernie
12-17-2012, 10:02 PM
From CNN:

As of Monday evening the largest and most powerful gun-rights lobbying group in the U.S. had not posted anything to its website since Friday morning, when a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton and killed 26 people, 20 of them children.

The NRA's Facebook page has been deactivated, and visitors are redirected to a bare-bones page where comments are disabled (although "Likes" are still allowed). Its Twitter account, which typically posts several times a day, also has been quiet. The group's last tweet, on Friday morning, was a promotional message that said, "10 Days of NRA Giveaways -Enter today for a chance to win an auto emergency tool!"

In a statement provided to CNN Friday about the shootings, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said only, "Until the facts are thoroughly known, NRA will not have any comment."

Google doesn't return any info on it being hacked nor does the spokesman reference it, but the statement was from Friday.

rickdugan
12-17-2012, 11:33 PM
Those fuckers at Westboro Baptist Church (which as far as I can tell has no idea what God wants) are going to picket the funerals of the innocents who died at Sandy Hook. Can we get some CT area strong men to stand and make sure the nutcases are kept far away from the greiving families?

Don't worry on that score - there are groups there planning a warm welcome for those nutjobs. I'll say no more except that they are probably the ones who are going to need protection.

Djoser
12-18-2012, 03:12 AM
A person whose first victim was a well-armed gunowner.

That's the bottom fucking line as far as I am concerned.

I don't see what the objection is to making it a little more difficult for unstable people to walk around with hand cannon and automatic weapons. It's far more serious than driving a car. Cars have myriad uses. There is only one use for guns, and that's killing other people. That calls for a very serious assurance of responsibility, and more effective limitation of access for children, teenagers, mentally unstable relatives, etc. than is currently being required.

I have a whole lot of friends whom I trust implicitly to be safe with their guns, and even possibly save some lives some day (I work with a lot of highly skilled ex-military guys with big gun collections). But I sure as shit don't trust many thousands of the millions of people who have obtained guns so easily in the USA. Or trust the judgement of those who seem to feel that yet more millions really ought to be carrying around tools for killing people with ridiculous ease at all times.

summerbre
12-18-2012, 03:45 AM
Something CONSTRUCTIVE. Wonder if it'll get any attention?

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother


Thank you SO much for sharing this. I initially didn't want to read anything about Adam Lanza, because if that woman is Adam Lanza's mother, then in some small ways I am Adam Lanza's sister.

I have a younger sister who is 15 now, who has been living in an all-girls Rescue Christian Youth Ranch for the last 6 months, after a series of terrifying poor decisions that I don't really want to go into much detail about. My family isn't Christian. My mom is the furthest thing from it. But after trying everything she could, she was scared for the safety of my three younger siblings (the youngest being 6), due to my sister's erratic outbursts. She was scared my sister would end up pregnant or strung out (she had tried drugs that she shouldn't have even had access to), and didn't know what else to do. I think it's interesting, one of the commenters noted that most of these mentally ill criminals are male. The females that fall under this mentally ill category with similar pathologies tend to cause more harm to themselves than others, and this is exactly what she was doing (most of the time).

Anyway, the fact that this is happening in my family is something that's been really hard for me to talk about. It literally makes me sick, and a lot of people close to me would be shocked to find out, because I haven't even mentioned it to them. But I'm kind of buzzed and clearly on a SW commenting spree and after reading this I just felt like I wanted to share and say something. There's almost no right thing to do when you have a mentally ill child, and I seriously admire the woman who wrote that article for having the strength to do what she has done.

Melonie
12-18-2012, 04:10 AM
I was going to post that one too. An excellent article and where money and effort needs to be placed. We do a horrible job on this country f dealing with the mentally ill and mental illness, but addressing that takes time, $$$, and commitment


I don't see what the objection is to making it a little more difficult for unstable people to walk around with hand cannon and automatic weapons


Now you're actually getting to the REAL reason that the USA seems to have more of these 'incidents' lately. Until a few years ago, persons who were diagnosed as being mentally ill in a way that could indicate high risk of violent behavior were involuntarily institutionalized, involuntarily medicated etc. - and thus prevented from walking into gun shops or being trained and provided with guns by their mother !!! However, US lawmakers decided that this 'better safe than sorry' approach to mental illness was an intolerable violation of the mentally ill persons' rights. As such, institutional mental hospitals were closed, very lightly supervised 'community residences' for the mentally ill were constructed, thousands of mental patients were simply released to do whatever. Additionally, new 'rules' were enacted which raised the bar in regard to the level of evidence necessary for a psychiatrist to have a mentally ill patient institutionalized for more than 72 hours, or to supervise the fact that a mentally ill patient is in fact taking prescribed medicines. In essence, US mentally ill are now held to the same 'innocent until proven guilty' standard as mentally healthy Americans ... i.e. nothing can be done to prior restrain a potentially dangerous mentally ill American until AFTER they have shot up a school or theatre.

If America truly wants to 'fix the problem', start with mental health laws instead of gun control.

PS banning 'assault weapons' discriminates against females with typically small physical stature ... a 12 pound hunting rifle and a 6 pound 'assault weapon' are capable of equal damage, and are equally 'light' for a 6 ft tall 200 pound guy, but I can tell you that the difference in size and weight makes a huge difference for a 5'3" 120 pound woman ( try trudging through the woods all day carrying a 12 pound rifle @@@ )

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 04:46 AM
Good points re the mental illness bit; I am behind in my info thee other than what happened in the late '90's when they released a bunch of people, most of whom ended up homeless. I guess I thought that in the intervening 15 years, something had been done about it. How very silly of me.

Melonie - um - assault rifle? Please don't buy into the impossibly ignorant anti-gun definition and use that term incorrectly. PLEASE. An assault rifle is a clip, magazine, or belt fed rifle CAPABLE OF FULLY AUTOMATIC AND BURST FIRE. That's what an assault rifle is, that's all an assault rifle ever has been. With or without a pistol grip, with our without accessory rails. The media has been pushing the liberal politician's agenda that anything semi-automatic and having a pistol grip is an "assault weapon". Apparently if it LOOKS LIKE something the military used or uses, IT MUST BE MILITARY.

I never have and never will understand the anti-gun lobby's insistence on completely pointless, ineffective, useless and otherwise JUST PLAIN IGNORANT "regulations". Trigger pull limits, magazine capacity limits, bans on rifles and shotguns having a "pistol like grip"... Only somebody who DOESN'T KNOW A GODDAMNED THING ABOUT GUNS would argue those points. People who know their way around a gun, realize that those differences make ZERO DIFFERENCE in the ability to use them for nefarious purpose. ZERO. They change the look and feel of the gun. That's it. Limit magazine capacity at 7 rounds? You just made the mags smaller and more concealable - they'll just carry more of them. Anyone with even basic training can swap a magazine in under .5 second - you saved no time and created only a minor inconvenience. 10 lb triggers? Thanks - you just made MY gun more arduous to operate. The criminals spend 5 minutes changing out ONE SPRING and they have a 2 lb trigger again. Pistol grips? Umm..? Why? I mean seriously - does this make you feel better because the gun LOOKS less intimidating? Is that it? All you've done is make it so MM can't handle my 12 gauge easily - which is for her defense too. Once again, a regulation that's pointless to begin with, makes things harder for law abiding citizens, and doesn't affect criminals. In other words - just like every other gun control law that addresses the weapon instead of the person. Gun locks and safes? REALLY? Oh that's right - these are to protect innocent children from getting the gun and being retarded with it. Never mind that it also completely eliminates the benefit to a home owner to HAVING THE WEAPON IN THE FIRST PLACE. Luckily, this is a law that's really easy to ignore and impossible to prosecute or enforce. Most kids that get hurt in gun accidents are the result of the negligence of the adults. Just like when kids die in pools. Or on bikes. In car crashes. With fireworks. Or any of the 1,001 ways you can get killed today when doing something stupid. BTW - most kids can handle a small firearm at 4 or 5. If you're gonna HAVE guns, teach them how to use and respect them early. That eliminates the problems of curiosity. When a gun is a tool like any other, when the mystery and the romance are eliminated and replaced with mendacity and familiarity, they get treated like any other tool.

Ignorant people acting out of ignorance demanding legislation from more ignorant people acting out of ignorance. But really - why should I expect this to be any different than anything else...

Plopplop
12-18-2012, 05:07 AM
Not to pick on you smurfette, you just provided the perfect quote to bring the anti-gun crowd under a convenient banner.

eagle, loveshooks, roat, smurfette - you've been the most vocal of teh anti-gun people in these discussions. So I would like to ask you - what is your experience with firearms? Have you ever handled one AT ALL? If so - more than once? Learned how to use and handle them, maintain them, etc? My guess is no. I don't know a single person that knows ANYTHING about firearms that feels like that quote above.

i have, and 99% of gun owners would be totally inadequate in a public shooting situation and i would actually be more scared with them around.

Someone mentioned movie theaters. A barely trained gun owner shooting back at someone shooting, in a dark place, with hundred civilians running around, thats not gonna end well.

im in favor of the right to own guns but not like this. One gun per person. You dont need more. Constant training. Safe storage. Insurance. Make mental health issues in some way accessible before having a license.

And no glorifying it. They are not toys.



At a party this weekend, I brought my new 1911 to show a couple of our friends who knew I picked it up. Opened the case, dropped the mag, checked that the chamber was clear, and handed it across the table. The reactions around the table were fascinating. Several people actually recoiled away from teh table like there was a live grenade in front of them. Magazine dropped, chamber clear - any one of those people could have picked up their steak knife or fork and been better armed and more dangerous than this useless lump of metal in that condition. And yet, when my friend took it and closed the slide, two people FLINCHED. For what? I told him "dude - feel the trigger on that thing, it's awesome." One lady freaked on me - "how can you tell him to pull the trigger in a crowded area?!!!" Seriously? He did. "click". I think 2 of them shit themselves.

You are in the wrong here. They see a stranger so fascinated with a gun that he brought it to a party among people he doesnt know, and handle it among them, and theyre supposed to just trust you.

Even those who know guns, its not like theyre gonna notice or check if you checked the chamber.

You had no reason to bring the gun to a party and show it. They had every reason to flinch. One mistake by you and one of them is dead.




Guns ARE dangerous. They are invented and manufactured to kill. Anyone who doesnt realise that shouldnt own one.

They are a tool to shoot someone who endangers you. They are not an extension of masculinity, nor a toy, nor a sport, nor a trophy to glorify.

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 05:38 AM
i have, and 99% of gun owners would be totally inadequate in a public shooting situation and i would actually be more scared with them around.

Someone mentioned movie theaters. A barely trained gun owner shooting back at someone shooting, in a dark place, with hundred civilians running around, thats not gonna end well.

im in favor of the right to own guns but not like this. One gun per person. You dont need more. Constant training. Safe storage. Insurance. Make mental health issues in some way accessible before having a license.

And no glorifying it. They are not toys.

Pretty much agreed 100%.


You are in the wrong here. They see a stranger so fascinated with a gun that he brought it to a party among people he doesnt know, and handle it among them, and theyre supposed to just trust you.

Even those who know guns, its not like theyre gonna notice or check if you checked the chamber.

You had no reason to bring the gun to a party and show it. They had every reason to flinch. One mistake by you and one of them is dead.

You make a LOT of assumptions here. A LOT.

First - I knew EVERY SINGLE PERSON THERE, and they know me.

Second - I cleared the gun in full view of the entire table, and the individual I handed it to cleared it again despite having just seen me do so, as he should.

Third - I absolutely had a reason to bring the gun to the party; in fact, I had more than one. Also, to be clear, the party was at a home that has several firearms, and everyone knows it, and knows that at least one person there open carries everywhere he goes - fully cocked and locked - including to these parties (every 2 weeks). Not a mystery here. Moving on, several of my friends had heard that I had picked this thing up recently and wanted to see it. Additionally, the friend that open carries his existing 1911 had specifically asked me to bring it because he knew the deal I got on it and that I might not want to keep it, and wanted to buy it off me and wanted to check it out.

Fourth - Every reason to flinch, one mistake by me and they're dead? *facepalm* C'mon. This is fear mongering, plain and simple. If you're going to be like that, at least be accurate with it - "if you are a complete idiot with no clue what he's doing AND you do something really stupid AND you make a mistake - one of them MIGHT be seriously hurt or killed". That is accurate. That was also not the case.


Guns ARE dangerous. They are invented and manufactured to kill. Anyone who doesnt realise that shouldnt own one.

Dangerous if mishandled and used incorrectly. Invented and manufactured to defend against killers. Or for hunting. Or for sport. Anyone who thinks of them as inherently dangerous objects in any manner other than they would a chainsaw, a pickaxe, or a blow torch - or a car, or cleaning chemicals, etc - is going to act irresponsibly with one and fail to use it when it matters, and shouldn't own one.

Once upon a time, a man home from military service purchased a .22 caliber revolver for his home. He loaded it, and put it in a drawer. He never touched it again. And there it sat, for 57 years. It didn't kill any of his kids, and they are grown and gone. It didn't do anything at all, ever, until last month. When he used it to shoot an armed intruder in his home. 57 year old gun with 57 year old ammo, doing the job it was purchased for 57 years ago by someone who knew what it was for and how to use it. Personally, I think he should have practiced a bit in that time, but hey - WWII and/or Korea were probably plenty of practice in his mind.


They are a tool to shoot someone who endangers you. They are not an extension of masculinity, nor a toy, nor a sport, nor a trophy to glorify.

See - this is where you got it right, 100% - for the first few bits. Than you say "nor for sport", which is wrong, and "nor a trophy to glorify", which is neither here nor there. A car is a dangerous tool if missed. A tool to transport people from point A to point B. They are not an extension of masculinity or personality, nor a toy, nor for sport (I'm having a hard time kleping a straight face at this point), nor a trophy to glorify. Anything that anyone "gets into" becomes an extension of something they express. They get personalized and modified and improved. And shown off, and enjoyed. Guns are no different than cars or motorcycles or huge Snap On tool chests full of overpriced tools in this regard. Their intended purpose is different - yes. They are manufactured to fire a projectile at high velocity toward an assailant or target. But there is nothing whatsoever different about them or any other tool once you go past that. They are an inanimate object, used or misused by human operators. Nothing more, nothing less.

Will
12-18-2012, 07:02 AM
Don't worry on that score - there are groups there planning a warm welcome for those nutjobs. I'll say no more except that they are probably the ones who are going to need protection.

They often to do need protection and will get it. If something bad were to happen to anyone one of them, I wouldn't shed a tear, that's for sure. However, the anger can get taken out on the people forced to protect them and their 1st Amendment Rights, stuck in the middle, and it's not like that they have not had enough to deal with.

Eye
12-18-2012, 07:02 AM
One gun per person. You dont need more. Constant training. Safe storage. Insurance. Make mental health issues in some way accessible before having a license.

And no glorifying it. They are not toys.


Guns ARE dangerous. They are invented and manufactured to kill. Anyone who doesnt realise that shouldnt own one.

They are a tool to shoot someone who endangers you. They are not an extension of masculinity, nor a toy, nor a sport, nor a trophy to glorify.

Totally disagree with all the bolded here.

One gun per person. Hm. If you hunt that is SO not gonna work.

We own 14 guns, and are a family of 4. My boys started shooting with a .22, same .22 my husband started with when he was a kid. It's much smaller and easier for them to handle and a great learning/starter gun. We have different guns for different types of game and pests. Depending on if you are shooting a possum vs a coyote, the type of gun you use can be critical. For deer we have a muzzle loader, and 3 different types of rifles. I personally own a 9 mil for protection, gift from my FIL.

Yep, they are NOT a toy. However, they ARE used to sport all over the world. Our guns are locked in the safe 24/7, unless we are wanting to practice or are going out hunting. We do keep a rifle close at hand unloaded for the occasional coyote that crosses our paths.

At the ages of 15 and 13, my boys would NEVER dream of getting into the safe w/o parental permission. They both started shooting/gun safety at the age of 5 with BB guns.

Shooting is fun to me. I enjoy having a better aim then my husband. We get out all our guns a few times a year to shoot them, clean them, and put them away again. For us, it's a nice day together as a family. And it's fun!

The key is proper training and security with guns in your home.

As far as the schools go. I don't think teachers need to be armed, unless they want to. But armed security in the schools is turning out to be unfortunately needed now a days. And it's very sad.

Will
12-18-2012, 07:20 AM
This thread has devolved into more noise than signal as such emotional loaded topics usually do. I'm out. Thanx for the (mostly) civil conversation. I wish you and your children well and continued safety.

People less comfortable with this:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/picture.jpg

Vs this

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/article-2193065-14ADD2AD000005DC-944_634x441.jpg

Truly live in denial and are part of the problem vs the solution in my view.

whirlerz
12-18-2012, 07:34 AM
Thank you SO much for sharing this. I initially didn't want to read anything about Adam Lanza, because if that woman is Adam Lanza's mother, then in some small ways I am Adam Lanza's sister.

I have a younger sister who is 15 now, who has been living in an all-girls Rescue Christian Youth Ranch for the last 6 months, after a series of terrifying poor decisions that I don't really want to go into much detail about. My family isn't Christian. My mom is the furthest thing from it. But after trying everything she could, she was scared for the safety of my three younger siblings (the youngest being 6), due to my sister's erratic outbursts. She was scared my sister would end up pregnant or strung out (she had tried drugs that she shouldn't have even had access to), and didn't know what else to do. I think it's interesting, one of the commenters noted that most of these mentally ill criminals are male. The females that fall under this mentally ill category with similar pathologies tend to cause more harm to themselves than others, and this is exactly what she was doing (most of the time).

Anyway, the fact that this is happening in my family is something that's been really hard for me to talk about. It literally makes me sick, and a lot of people close to me would be shocked to find out, because I haven't even mentioned it to them. But I'm kind of buzzed and clearly on a SW commenting spree and after reading this I just felt like I wanted to share and say something. There's almost no right thing to do when you have a mentally ill child, and I seriously admire the woman who wrote that article for having the strength to do what she has done.

Thanks for sharing this, is very brave! I hope everything goes well for your sis & family

Smurfette
12-18-2012, 08:36 AM
This thread has devolved into more noise than signal as such emotional loaded topics usually do. I'm out. Thanx for the (mostly) civil conversation. I wish you and your children well and continued safety.

People less comfortable with this:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/picture.jpg

Vs this

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/article-2193065-14ADD2AD000005DC-944_634x441.jpg

Truly live in denial and are part of the problem vs the solution in my view.

Wow, way to go. Complaining about the thread being 'noise' and then posting this. Thanks for keeping the level of discourse high!

Part of me wants to go back and respond to a bunch of these posts, but I know it's a waste of time. No one's mind is going to be changed here, and while I do enjoy the opportunity to practice my debate skills, I could probably better focus my energy elsewhere. Apparently I'm not qualified to offer my opinion on this matter anyway, since I'm not an experienced gun enthusiast, I'm just a liberal nutjob with her head in the sand.

See y'all around in the next thread about another horrifying gun massacre.

Eric Stoner
12-18-2012, 08:47 AM
No part of our Constitution is less understood than the Second Amendment : It is listed SECOND , right after the First for a reason. That's how important the Founders thought an armed citizenry able to defend themselves was. It says the: "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

That being said , there is no valid reason why a seriously sick young man should have had access to an assault rifle. In the days before this horrific tragedy his mother admitted that he was getting worse and she was unable to control him. I support gun rights but I have no problem with banning assault rifles. Likewise, getting a gun ought to just like registering and licensing a car. I find it interesting that the NRA has gone underground on this one - not a peep out of them.

Melonie - Mentally ill people can and ought to be committed if they are shown to be a danger to themselves or others. Lanza's mother could have been compelled to turn over her guns or otherwise show that Adam did not have access to them. The other part of the mental health question is that we closed a lot of mental hospitals in the 1970's and released a lot of patients. They were supposed to be cared for in small residential facilities i.e. group homes but guess what ? NIMBY ! When it came time to site those facilities, nobody wanted them in their neighborhoods.

To me , this the real heart of the issue. Proper care and treatment of the mentally ill.

Almost Jaded
12-18-2012, 09:14 AM
It. Was. Not. An. Assault. Rifle.

Kellydancer
12-18-2012, 12:10 PM
Like I mentioned up thread if we took mental illness more seriously we would cut down severely on these people getting guns. However neither party has made mental illness a priority. In fact my hateful idiotic governor has decided to close most of the mental hospitals and cut funding for mental illness. I shudder to think how many more crimes will happen because of this.

Eric Stoner
12-18-2012, 12:43 PM
It. Was. Not. An. Assault. Rifle.

Yes. It. Was !

The military versions of the SAME weapon ( M-16 and AR-15 ) are both assault rifles.
Many assault weapons can fire automatically i.e. depress the trigger and it can and will fire at anywhere from 500 to over 1000 rpm. Others like the most recent version of the M-16 ( and the Russian AK-74 ) fire 3 round bursts. Many , many assault weapons can and do operate at single fire i.e. each trigger pull fires one round .

What makes them "assault rifles " ? Usually it is the power of the round and the high capacity of the weapon. Lanza's Bushmaster had a 30 round magazine. That magazine can easily be emptied in 15 seconds and as little as 12. That is 120 to 150 rpm which is a lot faster than the old "mad minute" of the British Lee - Enfield. ( Trained British sharpshooters could fire 30 rounds a minute from the old bolt-action Lee- Enfield, the standard British infantry rifle in both W.W. I and W.W.II. )

Obviously I know this shit as well as you do Jaded. I own licensed firearms. I USED to be licensed to carry but had to give up my carry permit thanks to a crypto-fascist Mayor named Giuliani.

Nobody "needs" an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine (or even a 20 round) for self defense and they are lousy weapons for hunting because they lack accuracy compared to hunting rifles. As for Melonie's point about women and weight of weapon, unless she is going on a hike to find her assailant, I don't get it. Many handguns are specifically made for women and so are several shotguns.Numerous hunting rifles use the same composites as military weapons and are fairly lightweight.

I never joined the NRA because I always found their absolutism an inch away from fanaticism. Nothing scares me away more than fanatics and absolutists. We can and ought to balance gun RIGHTS with basic common sense. Banning guns only helps to make criminals safer but not everybody has the right to own a gun.

And in most cases of citizens successfully defending themselves with firearms, they never had to fire their weapons. Just having it was enough

jekka
12-18-2012, 01:02 PM
AR stands for for the original manufacturer's name, ArmaLite, not assault rifle.

Eric Stoner
12-18-2012, 01:13 PM
AR stands for for the original manufacturer's name, ArmaLite, not assault rifle.

Ooops. You're right but it is still an assault rifle.