School shooting CT, early reports 26 dead.
Posted on: December 14, 2012 - 2:08pm
Online
School shooting CT, early reports 26 dead.
Breaking news. How many events like this have to happen before gun control is taken seriously? 18 grade schoolers and 8 adults.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
The door to government abuses is already "open".
In fact, after 911 the door was busted off the fucking hinges with Bush and his Patriot Act bullshit. Now our newly elected Messiah will carry the ball for his team and lead us even further into this mess.
( but remember, it's only fascism when the Republicans do it. )
Fox News experts are now trying to blame "sexuality" and provocative images in violent video games as the cause for violence ?
OMG ! This is SUCH A CROCK OF SHIT !
Check this out :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU
That dumbass woman up there talking about : "I got to go with the research." Oh yeah lady, it is statistically proven that every teenage boy who thinks about sex is a potential mass murderer.
Why, everyone knows that all teenagers think about is getting good grades and the horrifying thing called sex never crosses their minds.
Let's just ban all sexuality, that will stop people from mass murder.
GOD ! I hate the human race on some days.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Democrat Joe Lieberman from Conn is on Fox News with Chris Matthews. One of the things he's advocating for is a "Violence Commission" that would monitor violence in the media. He said at first he'd hope that compliance among the media would be voluntary, ...but.
They are all so full of shit ! Politicians playing the age old game of " Let's cash in on the tragedy to further a cause"
And people will believe it is actually going to do something.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Now gun control fanatic ( Democrat ) Dianne Feinstein was asked on a news program would she approve of having a single armed guard at elementary schools to protect kids during an attack. She replied "Is that what we really want in America ?"
So this leftist, progressive politician believes that school children are not worth providing with professional armed protection to save their lives ? Yet gun prohibitionists like herself and NY mayor Bloomberg, frequently enjoy the benefits of armed protection whenever they travel. Plus Feinstein had a California concealed handgun permit in the 1970's when she was involved in local politics there. What a fucking elitist bitch.
Any thing to get rid of the bleeding heart liberals.
LMAO
Yeah and people are always evil and never do any good and laws are always broken, every thing is complete chaos and nobody wants peace. Might as well cash in your chips and quit the game now because there is no hope.
Actually I argue the opposite. That most people are good, most people will not hurt their fellow citizens. Bad people on the other hand have two tendencies, first they don't worry about breaking laws and second they are attracted to power and won't hesitate to use government to their personal advantage. Our system of government and our laws should take that into account and be organized in such a way as to punish bad people and not punish everyone else while making it difficult for people to abuse governmental power.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
As a corollary to that I would argue that when people feel individually responsible for something they tend to perform good actions, when their responsibility is removed or the harm occurs removed enough from them personally they don't feel personally responsible for it so their actions tend to be more "bad" or damaging. That is why for years my Grandma accepted Social Security but got really mad if I offered her any cash because she didn't want to take money from her grandson...never mind that taking money from me was exactly what she was doing with the government as a third party.
Your average person is willing to allow a government to do things that they personally would consider wrong. So yeah, I trust people with guns far more than I trust any government with guns. Soldiers point and shoot where ordered without thinking and such decisions are made by a large bureaucratic apparatus where no one person is ever to blame. Try to find which person was responsible for some airstrike that kills a bunch of civilians, you won't find one. Individual citizens with guns make far more discriminating decisions.
Do you feel guilty about the civilians we kill with our airstrikes? Sure, maybe your bleeding liberal side of your heart thinks "that is so sad, we should stop it" but I doubt it keeps you awake at night like it might if you personally ordered the bombing and flew the drone. Yet you voted for the guy who continues the strikes and those strikes are being done in all of our names. You don't feel responsible because you are so far removed from the decision process. On one hand, you have nothing to do with the decision and there is nothing you could do tomorrow to stop them. On the other hand, it was millions of people like you (and virtually every other voter in the US) who voted for the people that appointed the people that make that decision.
People in groups are far more cruel and dangerous than people as individuals. Being in a group allows you to spread out the blame and pretend to yourself that you are not the bad person. That is exactly the psychology that many tyrannies throughout the ages have used to get people to do horrible things to others that they would never do on their own.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I live in the UK - we have had 3 major mass murder shooting sprees since 1987 - Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. All three involved guns that were able to shoot multiple times without reloading (revolvers, assault rifles, bolt action rifles). All three had valid licenses for the guns they used.
Columbine - Guns were bought for them by a friend. Use of automatic weapons
Virginia tech - Use of semi-automatic weapons bought legally
Sandy Hook - use of semi-automatic and handguns. Owned by mother, a 'gun enthusiast' who believed the apocalypse was imminent. (recent event - may prove to be untrue)
I disagree with Beyond's point that it would be a solution if people put their guns in safes. That's a condition of getting a license here, but in the UK the safe-owners were the ones that did the killings In the US, with the possible recent exception, the guns were not owned by the parents. I also disagree that responsible people with guns in safes can stop their unhinged teenagers from using them - my father had a gun safe, my brother and I both knew where the key was - if a teenager wants to find a key to a safe, they will find it. Parents are naive if they think their kids don't know much more than they think they know. In the most recent case, the mother does not seem like a particularly responsible gun-owner - taking her mentally unstable son to shooting ranges (again - according to his brother, which may or may not be a reliable source). Where guns in safes does help is preventing access to younger children by accident, or burglars who can then use them for other crimes.
What is evident in all the shootings I've mentioned (I've only considered the most major incidents in the UK and US in the last 30 years - my research time is limited, although the Norway case fits the mould here too) is the use of handguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons. (I concede that shotguns were also used, but I don't know if these were pump action or double barrel..)
The arguments for (some - are there others?):
The argument for self-protection and protection of your home - frankly doesn't stand up when the availability of guns is restricted. The UK has strict gun control, and The stats that I've been looking at ( http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110220105210/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf -page 38) show that in the year 2005/06 (the only year I've readily found stats for) NO 'non-air' guns were used in reported burglaries. not one. So unless you're walking around already carrying a loaded gun to protect yourself from robbery or personal violence, you're not going to find owning a gun useful to protect yourself and your property. And if you do do this, you should be considered a danger to the public in the first place really.
The argument for constitutional freedom - I don't believe was ever intended for or should extend to multiple-fire weapons. I'd be interested in listening to arguments for this that extend past the "he might have one so I should have one to balance the odds" position (which is statistically unlikely to ever occur in a firearms-restricted culture given the stats cited previously) or the "I use it safely and for fun" position, which does not offset the possibility of serious accidental or intentional harm to others by others. I might like blowing things up with dynamite - does that mean I should be allowed to? Not without a good reason, like it being my job and I've been professionally trained to do it. I don't see any real difference here.
The argument for hunting - is not valid for handguns and semi- or fully-automatic weapons. Any disagreement on this point would point to the fact you're a really bad hunter.
The argument for "end of the world" / "commie invasion" protection - would weaken the case, you nutjob.
In conclusion, I believe the US should ban handguns, pump action shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and fully automatic weapons outright, with the exception of military use.
Licensing of bolt-action and double barrel shotguns should be made much stricter, and only to those who actually do go hunting/use ranges. Ammunition should be only available to license-holders. Guns should be securely locked when not in use, and there should be a limit to the number of guns and ammunition allowed in the home (all others should be held at secure ranges with a check-in/check out policy).
Will this stop crazy people shooting others? no, I don't think so, but I do think it would make the death tolls lower. The only way to try and stop gun deaths outright would be a total ban, but modded replicas, home-made weapons and bombs, knives etc can always still be used to kill and injure, so the effect of a total ban would do little to reduce the stats much lower than the measures suggested above.
So consider merely this - We cannot stop people who are mentally or psychologically disturbed from attempting to kill many innocent people. We can limit their access to things that enable them to do this as efficiently as possible. Is the argument that 'most' people don't use these objects for harmful reasons good enough to risk lives? Even a single life? Is the right for you to safely use a gun a more important right than one of these kids' right to continue living?
I was being sarcastic
dp
I'd like to see the law change from being allowed to have those large arsenals. The right to bear arms has fucking nothing to do with owning 100 guns and enough ammo to blow a hole in the fabric of time. It's literally bullshit and every one who claims that it is their right to do so should be tossed. They are a menace to our society and do nothing to fix the problem.
People who claim they only want to "collect" weapons should have the weapons cemented. If they want to collect then let them collect, but being allowed to have automatic weapons is complete and utterly bullshit. The same goes for people who hunt and claim they use it for hunting. You don't need a automatic weapon to hunt with unless you are expecting an animal to start shooting back.
The issue with this recent shooting I blame completely on the mother and father of the kid. He was obviously really messed up and they were ignorant or non-responsive to his situation.
I was reacting to the limited information we had at the time- which as it turns out virtually everything being reported was flat out wrong. Anyway, safes only prevent unauthorized access to the guns. I think my point stands though that a gun owner should be held liable for any illegal activity done with their weapons and I have no problem with the law putting that responsibility on them. If you have children, especially ones with psychological problems, you should take extra steps to ensure they cannot access your guns. If you allow your kids to have access to guns and they kill someone, you should be held civilly liable and perhaps even criminally. Obviously a moot point in this particular case since the mother is dead. The ideal solution is a biometric safe which will prevent anyone other than you from accessing it anytime.
.... that covers pretty much 95% of all guns made.
I carry a loaded gun from time to time. Generally when I am walking around with a significant amount of cash and people know it, like when I play poker, or when I am going to an area I know has higher than average crime. So do tens of thousands of Americans who have never shot a person.
The express purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not hunting, sport shooting or even personal protection. The express purpose of it is to kill government soldiers. They just came through a revolution and believed that another revolution at some point in the future was inevitable. They believed that any government would eventually become tyrannical and have to be overthrown using physical force.
Crazy nutjob? We are only a couple hundred years old and we already had one revolution where a large portion of the citizens decided they needed to pick up arms against their government. They lost, but I think it is good that they had the option of putting up a fight. It is absolutely foolish to say that something that has happened countless times in history will "never happen". I don't think it is something that will happen in my lifetime, at least I hope not. But the citizenry should be armed with weapons that would allow them to wage a respectable war against their government. It is crazy to believe that simply because a government is democratic that it will never become aggressive or abusive.
I use both pistols and semi-autos for hunting. No one has ever accused me of being a bad hunter. Pistols are particularly nice for small game since you can holster it and enjoy a nice walk in the woods. I use a .44 mag revolver for deer hunting and that same .44 mag is quite useful for last resort bear protection when bowhunting in bear country and also to harvest rattlesnakes. I enjoy using a .22 pistol for squirrels and rabbits because of the convenience and shooting the things with a long rifle is frankly too damn easy.
When it comes to bird hunting a semi-auto shotgun is typical. You work all day to flush birds it is foolish to limit your shots and only get one when you could easily shoot three with a semi-auto. My dog would be pretty pissed off if only one bird fell out of the sky after his hard work. He would probably bite me and give me the cold shoulder. Plus, when you are hunting brush birds like Ruffed Grouse like we have around here, it often takes two shots because the first shot is mostly deflected by the thick cover they hide in- they are a lot less civilized birds than pheasants which have the decency to take off in open areas and give you a luxurious amount of time to plan your shot.
If I am going varmint hunting (coyotes, racoons etc.) I almost always use a .223 semi-auto rifle (one which in some states qualifies as a *gasp* 'assault rifle'). Not that I am planning on missing, but they generally come in groups and I intend to have several animals on the ground. They run fast so a bolt action really limits your shots for no good reason other than to make the anti-gun crowd feel good about themselves. Such guns are rarely used in crimes, the vast majority of crimes use pistols because they are A LOT cheaper, like a thousand dollars cheaper, and concealable.
Glad you don't live over here.
I would say that the rights of the majority is more important than the lives of the minority. Alcohol causes thousands of deaths every year, whether from people drinking and driving or people making bad decisions while drinking etc. For what? No good reason other than personal pleasure. Should we ban all alcohol? Sure, people will still drink, you can't stop that because no ban on anything has ever worked, but fewer people would. You might save a handful of lives and therefore using your logic it would be worthwhile.
Next, we should ban all cars in cities, because cars kill a lot of innocent people- way more than guns do. And if you are in a city, there is public transportation available so you don't need a car. Perhaps we should have a permitting process so people can prove they live too far away from their job or the local bus station in order to get a car. Then we should ban household cleaners because household cleaners kill more children than guns do- perhaps we should require a permit to buy those?
You can't protect people from every possible threat to their lives. So the question is, is it worth eliminating guns from all law abiding people to have some decrease in the amount of gun violence? I say no. And the largest reason? Ten years of a tyrannical government can kill more innocent people than a thousand years of gun violence and accidents combined. Is it so far fetched that at some point in the next 1000 years the US government will collapse? I don't think so, judging by history most countries don't survive that long without a good revolution, civil war or ten. When the government collapses who will take over? Who knows. It could be a very nice government, it could be an absolute tyranny. Either way, I trust the citizens of the country being armed far more than I trust whoever happens to take over command of the military.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The Soviet Union had a pretty good record for having little or no gun crime. Of course that state of domestic bliss wasn't enough to offset the almost total lack of civil liberties among it's citizens.
Fuck it, freedom is over rated, anyway.
Does that include me?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Actually, no. People in groups can act in very positive ways. Just view the aftermath of any disaster. They can also act in very negative ways. The social situation surrounding the group has a lot of impact on the actions taken by the group.
Never generalize. It only gets you in trouble. And I can say that because I make that mistake myself, all too often.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Well, not all libertarians/conservatives agree with you -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50222624
His point appears to be exactly that an imperfect solution is better than no attempt at a solution. And that the recent incidents indicate that limits need to be put in place. He started with many of your (and prozac's ) arguments and he refutes them better than I could.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Sure they can act in positive ways in groups, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't. My point is simply that in groups they can also be far more dangerous and there is a very large difference between a group of volunteers helping people out that doesn't have any physical power to coerce anyone and a government which has numerous coercive means at their disposal. If you have coercive means at your disposal, you are likely to use them because coercion is easier than persuasion. I should probably also point out that coercion can be used with very good intentions and even have positive end results. However, I am philosophically opposed to using coercion as anything other than a means of last resort.
Although the same type of psychological effect takes place in groups that do positive things too. Anyone who has been involved with some charity will tell you that a large number of people will do very little to actually help but will happily take credit for being part of the group. In that case, rather than spreading the blame they collect the credit. Certainly not everyone, but many and I include myself in this as well. More than once I've taken personal satisfaction in the acts of a charity when all I did was donate a few bucks when there are people who put in substantially more effort into actually doing something.
Most conservatives don't agree with me, that is why I left the GOP, specifically because of big government conservatives like Scarborough. Any agreement I have with him is purely coincidental, because we certainly are on opposing sides philosophically.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Not all atheists do, either.
I don't look to Joe Scarborough for political inspiration. Did you actually think I am influenced by what this neo-con believes ....about anything ?
( edited for clarity )
Samuel L. Jackson ....who is an avid Obama supporter....is breaking with the herd mentality of other progressives:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/samuel-l-jackson-newtown-school-shooting-gun-control-violence-in-movies_n_2321545.html
Does this Hollywood Democrat's contrary opinion sway you in the least ? I'm guessing your answer would be "no" ?
I did not expect it to sway anyone - I was just interested (and I thought one or two others might be interested as well) in that he had changed his opinion from a viewpoint very like yours and Beyond's to one that advocated some gun controls.
I do not consider my opinion to be part of a "herd mentality" as I have held my opinions for many years. My opinions were formed from my personal experiences in growing up in a house with guns and my life experiences after leaving home. If we all were as responsible as my grandfather - and perhaps you and BS - then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?
But not everyone is as responsible as you are. I agree there is no perfect solution. What a partial solution would be, may have to be some restrictions on semi-automatic, automatic, and large add-on magazines. I also think more research, therapy, and help for parents of troubled children - which likely means more tax money spent as well - would not be amiss. Perhaps some reasoned discussion about violence in our culture, acceptance of portraying guns as a solution to problems, and so on would help. I don't think it is any one thing that will reduce gun violence but rather a number of approaches to the various problems that contribute to the issue.
Another option is to remove all gun related laws and let everyone shoot it out. I don't see how that would prevent more schools from being shot up. Yeah, you could have an armed person at every door, but what would stop someone from shooting through a window or tossing molotov cocktails in? Or sniping at the school crosswalks? That is not a perfect answer either.
I repeat - it isn't one problem, it isn't one answer, there won't be a perfect solution. There never is one problem, one answer, or one solution to real life problems.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Even Bill O'Reilly the supposed right wing , "arch-conservative" is very receptive to gun control. These neo-cons don't appeal to me in any way and as a result I never watch either of them.
And after those restriction become law and there's another shooting, what will you ban next ?
It depends on how far you take your approaches and whether various civil liberties, both collective and individual, are tossed away.
I doubt you'll have many takers among even the most ardent gun nuts.
Why wouldn't armed guards be an effective tool ? Yes, there is no perfect answer as even Presidents themselves have been assassinated ( sniping included ) ....yet the presence of armed guards continues on as a Presidential practice. It always will.
What I am looking for is an answer that is designed to distinguish between those who are guilty and those who are innocent. I will not tolerate any measure that proactively punishes me and restricts my freedom and subjects me to criminal prosecution based not upon my actions but entirely upon the configuration of my legally purchased weapons.
I will not tolerate being legislated into a state of guilt when I had no intentions of ever being a criminal in the first place. One day I'm innocent of any crimes and without changing my behavior in any way, with a few strokes of a Presidential pen, I'm a potential felon.
I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple or anything but this quote purportedly comes from her 1930 novel Atlas Shrugged has a lot of meaning:
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens ? What's there in that for anyone ? But just pass the kinds of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law breakers-and then you can cash in on all the guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game,and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
I agree with him in the sense that the problem with this kid wasn't gun control, it was his mental state. However, if the mother had her weapons properly stored then I believe this tragedy would have been avoided.
I don't believe this kid could have been educated. His mental state was completely whacked out. You couldn't reason with him.
I agree.
Read this...
www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-shooting-anarchist-soccer-mom/index.html