The alleged gunman at an elementary school in Connecticut is dead, an official told NBC News, and at least three people were hospitalized in the shooting that sent crying children spilling into the parking lot.
Two handguns were recovered from the scene, the official told WNBC's Jonathan Dienst. The official had no information whether any children were hurt at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
Three people were taken to nearby Danbury Hospital, a spokeswoman told NBC Connecticut. She would not elaborate on the ages of the victims or their conditions.
One of those taken to the hospital was a teacher who had been shot in the foot, the Associated Press reported, citing a dispatcher at the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps.
The Newtown Bee reported that one child, apparently wounded, was carried from the scene by a police officer.
Shannon Hicks / The Newtown Bee.
Children are led from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Friday after a reported shooting there.
In a photo taken by the Bee, crying students could be seen being escorted from the school by police. They were taken to a nearby fire station where their parents were picking them up.
A third-grader, Alexis Wasik, told the Hartford Courant that police checked students and staffers before they were escorted to the fire station.
"We had to walk with a partner," she said.
An elementary school student recalls the terrifying moments following sounds of shots fired at her Connecticut elementary school, saying "teachers told us to go in the corner so we all huddled."
NBC Connecticut reported that the entire school district was in lockdown.
Students told NBC Connecticut on its live broadcast that they heard multiple gunshots and were quickly ushered into classroom corners as teachers locked the doors.
BreakingNews.com's coverage of the incident
Newtown is about 45 miles southwest of Hartford and 60 miles northeast of New York City.
The K-4 school has about 600 students.
This report will be updated as information becomes available.
UPDATE:
Updated at 2:37 p.m. ET: A teacher's son clad in black and carrying two handguns rampaged through a Connecticut elementary school Friday, killing 18 small children and seven adults, including his mother, in the nation’s second-worst school shooting, law enforcement officials said.
The gunman, identified as Ryan Lanza, 24, of Hoboken, N.J., also was found dead at the scene, a federal law enforcement official said. Lanza's mother is a kindergarten teacher at the Newtown, Conn., school, and it's inside her classroom where most of the casualties took place, according to WNBC's Jonathan Dienst.
Another member of Lanza's family was found shot to death at home in Newtown, and a second person is in custody for a possible connection to Friday's slaughter.
Some young survivors -- all under age 10 -- described the terror of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and a massive police response that included SWAT officers going room to room to search for victims.
"I was in the gym and I heard a loud, like seven loud booms, and the gym teachers told us to go in the corner, so we all huddled," a student told NBC Connecticut. "And I kept hearing these booming noises. And we all … started crying.
"All the gym teachers told us to go into the office where no one could find us," she added. "So then a police officer came in and told us to run outside. So we did and we came in the firehouse.”
Authorities in the small bedroom community 60 miles from New York City were alerted to the unfolding carnage by a 911 call around 9:30 a.m. and then reached out to state police and neighboring police departments for help.
Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said troopers who responded fanned out across the school and searched “every door, every crack, every crevice” of the building.
He said only that they found “several fatalities,” including the shooter, at the scene.
The 600-student school goes up to the fourth grade. The Hartford Courant, citing unnamed sources, said many of the victims were in a kindergarten classroom.
After the search was over, children and staff were escorted to a staging area outside where they were reunited with panicked loved ones over the next few hours.
Shannon Hicks / The Newtown Bee.
Children are led from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., on Friday after a reported shooting there.
Brenda Lebinski, mother of a third-grader, called the scene “horrendous.”
“Everyone was in hysterics - parents, students. There were kids coming out of the school bloodied. I don't know if they were shot, but they were bloodied,'' she said, according to Reuters.
One parent picking up his 7-year-old son said the shooting was “the most terrifying moment a parent can imagine” and described the anguish of waiting to find out if his son was a victim and then running to his child.
“It was the greatest relief in my existence,” the father said. “I’m just happy that my kid’s OK.”
Bracing for a large influx of wounded, Danbury Hospital went on lockdown and cleared four trauma rooms. It received only three patients, including a teacher shot in the foot, the Associated Press reported.
The motive for the shooting was unknown, and the gunman’s name was not released.
Two 9mm handguns were recovered from the scene, an official told WNBC's Dienst. The Associated Press said one of the guns was a.223-caliber rifle.
The FBI was on the scene, assisting with the investigation. “There is a great deal of search warrant activity…in and out of the state,” Vance said, without giving specifics.
Connecticut Gov. Dannell Malloy was meeting with families near Sandy Hook.
“As you can imagine, the governor is horrified by what’s happened,” said aide Roy Occhiogrosso.
President Obama was told of the shooting at 10:30 a.m.
"I can just tell you that as a father, incidents like these weigh heavily on him, and I think everyone who has children and can imagine the enormous suffering that accompanies an event like this,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.
The death toll is the highest from a school shooting in U.S. history since a gunman killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. At Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, two teens killed 13 people and wounded 24 in 1999.
Parent Stephen Delgiadice, whose 8-year-old daughter was not hurt, said he never could have imagined such bloodshed in the quiet town, where the police force has only three detectives.
"It's alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America," he told The Associated Press.
Gah guns are killing our country!!! rabble rabble rabble...
Seriously though, what a tragedy... It'll probably be a few days before we find out the shooter had tried to see someone for mental health, and was turned away or ignored, and some significant person to the shooter will tell the nation that the shooter would never do something like this....
For a second i thought it was an elementary kid who had the gun and got shot.
Thank goodness it wasnt.
And Thankgoodness this guy got what he deserved. I bet it was possibly a deranged parent who lost custody or something.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
They are committing Suicide. It's called "death by Cop". You do something horrendous like this and have the cops do it because you don't have the courage to do it yourself. they are sad little men who want their name in the paper when they die.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
Twitter is going on about gun regulation... I've only seen one post involving mental health care...
Let's be honest, it's not gun enthusiasts with mental health issues, it's those with mental health issues with guns... The deep south has plenty of the first, and they're shooting moon shine jars, not kids...
Yes but if you bring innocent people into the mix you become a pathetic little coward who is simply acting out for attention and ruining people's lives who have nothing to do with your problems whatsoever. Go in the garage and blow your head off. The world will be a better place.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
Twitter is going on about gun regulation... I've only seen one post involving mental health care...
Let's be honest, it's not gun enthusiasts with mental health issues, it's those with mental health issues with guns... The deep south has plenty of the first, and they're shooting moon shine jars, not kids...
Usually after they finish the shine of course.
Guns are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is nutcases.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
Twitter is going on about gun regulation... I've only seen one post involving mental health care...
Let's be honest, it's not gun enthusiasts with mental health issues, it's those with mental health issues with guns... The deep south has plenty of the first, and they're shooting moon shine jars, not kids...
Usually after they finish the shine of course.
Guns are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is nutcases.
d3m01iti0n wrote: Yes but if you bring innocent people into the mix you become a pathetic little coward who is simply acting out for attention and ruining people's lives who have nothing to do with your problems whatsoever. Go in the garage and blow your head off. The world will be a better place.
Germany, finland and the uk have all had some school shootings, and have stricter fun control than the US. But the US has many more shootings than other d
eveloped countries.
d3m01iti0n wrote: Yes but if you bring innocent people into the mix you become a pathetic little coward who is simply acting out for attention and ruining people's lives who have nothing to do with your problems whatsoever. Go in the garage and blow your head off. The world will be a better place.
Reports at the moment here in the UK are saying that an entire class of kids is unaccounted for and the police have found a body at the shooters home. No reports as to who the dead person at the house is/was.
The gunman was just 20 years old according to BBC news ATM, and he was a young parent who had an altercation with the headmaster.... How very very sad...
Da Boss wrote: Germany, finland and the uk have all had some school shootings, and have stricter fun control than the US. But the US has many more shootings than other d
eveloped countries.
Sorry, wasn't disputing the more gun violence thing... I was disputing the fact that Canada has weapons...
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Reports at the moment here in the UK are saying that an entire class of kids is unaccounted for and the police have found a body at the shooters home. No reports as to who the dead person at the house is/was.
The gunman was just 20 years old according to BBC news ATM, and he was a young parent who had an altercation with the headmaster.... How very very sad...
...this is not proper conflict resolution. The FETH was up with this guy's head?
I suppose this does illustrate the difference between bad guys and good guys.
Bad guys (with guns or not) want to hurt... well just about any one, but especially people they see as defenseless.
Good guys (with guns or not) want to hurt bad guys.
CDK wrote: Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but they don't have NEAR the gun violence we do.
I'm calling shenanigans on that... Do you have a link? Cause I think Frazz has more guns than Canada...
My dogs have more guns than Canada.
Is it surprising that I find more validity with your claim than I originally did with CDK's statement?
Also, I'm taking an over under on how many minutes until my hippy liberal friend from high school compares me to this nutjob for owning a gun... My bet? 25 minutes simply because of the time required for her to send tweets while at work...
Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
Seems the shooter was one "Ryan Lanza" ( sp ?), he killed his father at their home, then went to the school where his mother worked and.. well, we know the rest.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
According to his facebook page he was a fan of community theater, bands you've never heard of, mass effect and wearing large coats.
d3m01iti0n wrote:Shooter was 24 and the son of one of the elementary school teachers. The body found at his home is one of his parents.
Okay, that makes a little more sense than it being a 20-yr old parent of a student... Well if the deceased parent wasn't the teacher, he or she probably won't be able to work at that school anymore... Way to feth up your parent's future you gakker!
Edit: Reds8n has corrected me on this...
Hordini wrote:
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
Yeah, I'm with Hordini on this... I'm thinking the number is really... really... low... Columbine: Not NRA members Virginia Tech: Not NRA member Movie Theatre Guy: Not NRA member Oregon: Idk This nutjob: probably not...
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
I said probably. But I'm sorry I was generalizing. I'm just so pissed right now! I was already pissed with the Oregon mall shooting and now this!
reds8n wrote: Seems the shooter was one "Ryan Lanza" ( sp ?), he killed his father at their home, then went to the school where his mother worked and.. well, we know the rest.
So sad watching the interviews and the pictures.
As these details come out, it's getting sadder and sadder.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
I said probably. But I'm sorry I was generalizing. I'm just so pissed right now! I was already pissed with the Oregon mall shooting and now this!
Being pissed isn't the emotion you should be expressing at this moment. It should be one of sorrow and empathy for those that died.
CDK wrote: [
I said probably. But I'm sorry I was generalizing. I'm just so pissed right now! I was already pissed with the Oregon mall shooting and now this!
Understandable, this is a pretty shocking event. But quoting Michael Moore is rarely a good idea.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
I said probably. But I'm sorry I was generalizing. I'm just so pissed right now! I was already pissed with the Oregon mall shooting and now this!
And "probably" is wrong, because however you feel about the NRA, its members don't tend to go on rampages.
This is so messed up. I wish people would stop doing this kind of crap.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
What? How many mass shooters have been NRA members?
I said probably. But I'm sorry I was generalizing. I'm just so pissed right now! I was already pissed with the Oregon mall shooting and now this!
Being pissed isn't the emotion you should be expressing at this moment. It should be one of sorrow and empathy for those that died.
I don't think it's particularly constructive to tell someone else how they should feel about something. People react to bad situations in a variety of ways. Being angry at someone who shot a bunch of innocent people is a perfectly reasonable response. So is being sad and feeling empathy. Sometimes people even feel those ways at the same time.
CDK wrote: Even Michael Moore, in one of his movies, showed it. He has no love for guns but even he showed that there's more there guns in Canada but less gun violence. They just have a totally different attitude there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Comment found on the NRA page: "I pray that all the children killed in CT are sons and daughters of NRA members." -Karen (not mentioning last names). Wow, just wow. What have we left when we have lost all humanity?
What?! The flipping kid that did it was more likely a member!
Don't you dare bring that fat piece of gak to any argument you want to win. He's an ignorant blathering fathead who found out he could be famous by drawing attention to issues he makes up with "facts" he invented.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
This. The gun violence is a symptom. The cause is mental illness. if we had better methods for people to identify and deal with mental helath issues; we would see School Shootings be reduced.
I'm sorry guys. I am angry but I'll get over it. My sadness though is taking over. All I can think about is my son going back to kindergarten after being sick all week.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do we treat the actual problem though? Mental health screenings at all levels of school? Increased availability of care?
It's a start... I know plenty of people that need mental help and they simply can't afford it.
And CDK, I'm sorry dude... I would be worried if I had a kid too..
As a slight non-sequitor: Local radio station posed the question about what we do to fix this issue, and the show is known for it's slightly off the cuff humor had the host say we obviously need to arm the kids so they can defend themselves.
There's two shooters? (ones dead and another in custody?? seeing conflicting reports)
Lots of conflicting reports. I saw one report that his brother was taken in for questioning. Perhaps his brother found out his father was killed and raced to the school where his mom was? Dunno. Again, speculation. I think it will take a few days for everything to shake out.
Latest report says that most of the kids were kindergartners... So sad.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do we treat the actual problem though? Mental health screenings at all levels of school? Increased availability of care?
It's a start... I know plenty of people that need mental help and they simply can't afford it.
And CDK, I'm sorry dude... I would be worried if I had a kid too..
As a slight non-sequitor: Local radio station posed the question about what we do to fix this issue, and the show is known for it's slightly off the cuff humor had the host say we obviously need to arm the kids so they can defend themselves.
Well my Israeli friend says that when she was in school all her teachers carried pistols so they could defend their students if terrorists attacked the school (which has happened) so... that? maybe?
Like I said before it's not Entirely the guns, It's the Lack of access to mental health. I literally was just talking to someone at work who was originally from Bulgaria. He said to buy a gun you had to do a mental health test at a police station before you buy one.
CDK wrote: Like I said before it's not Entirely the guns, It's the Lack of access to mental health. I literally was just talking to someone at work who was originally from Bulgaria. He said to buy a gun you had to do a mental health test at a police station before you buy one.
That's not a bad idea...
Also, anyone know what guns fire a .223 caliber round? Apparently that is the caliber of the rifle being used.
We are now learning that a male is being questioned by investigators, but he is not being called a suspect, CNN's Susan Candiotti reports.
That is probably the brother we keep on hearing about.
Lisa Procaccini, the parent of an 8-year-old at the school, tells CNN that her daughter said school officials kept her calm during the shooting and told her the loud noise was hammering going on.
I wonder what stories will be coming from the teachers. Seems like there are often stories after those kind of things where the teachers tried to make a run at the shooter to protect the kids.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do we treat the actual problem though? Mental health screenings at all levels of school? Increased availability of care?
It's a start... I know plenty of people that need mental help and they simply can't afford it.
It's not just that people cannot afford it.
A great many people do not want mental help as well, which is another hurdle. They see it as anything from "being weak" to worrying about the stigma of seeing a mental health professional and any number of reasons.
CDK wrote: Like I said before it's not Entirely the guns, It's the Lack of access to mental health. I literally was just talking to someone at work who was originally from Bulgaria. He said to buy a gun you had to do a mental health test at a police station before you buy one.
That's not a bad idea...
Also, anyone know what guns fire a .223 caliber round? Apparently that is the caliber of the rifle being used.
AR-15s and Ruger Mini 14s, seem the most likely in this situation. But the .223 is a pretty popular round, so it could be a wide variety of weapons.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do we treat the actual problem though? Mental health screenings at all levels of school? Increased availability of care?
It's a start... I know plenty of people that need mental help and they simply can't afford it.
It's not just that people cannot afford it.
A great many people do not want mental help as well, which is another hurdle. They see it as anything from "being weak" to worrying about the stigma of seeing a mental health professional and any number of reasons.
Quoted for truth, it took me a couple months to seek help for depression and some other issues connected to my abusive psycho ex
You need to pass a background check - criminal record for crimes and arrests, as well as mental portion aka not escapee or semething. In Texas there are a few other bits as well IIRC. Although there are federal limits there are also state limits as well. SOme states have waiting periods and much more stringent requirements, up to effectively banning firearms and different capacities.
You need to pass a background check - criminal record for crimes and arrests, as well as mental portion aka not escapee or semething. In Texas there are a few other bits as well IIRC. Although there are federal limits there are also state limits as well. SOme states have waiting periods and much more stringent requirements, up to effectively banning firearms and different capacities.
That's what I thought, sorry been conversing about the availability of getting your hands on such a firearm with someone who says it's really easy to buy a .223 caliber gun on the fly...
I'm looking up local and connecticut firearm laws... Note: Looking at the local hunting shop has various assault rifles with the capability to fire .223 and they're over a grand... I don't have the capabilities to do that lol..
For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
Yeah, .223 doesn't really tell you anything beyond the size of the round. Someone on twitter had posted a picture of a fully kitted out M4 and said something to the effect of "This is a .223 rifle. How is this even legal?" A .223 can also be a simple bolt action hunting rifle. There is a huge difference in effective application of those two weapons, even though they use the same round.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
This. The gun violence is a symptom. The cause is mental illness. if we had better methods for people to identify and deal with mental helath issues; we would see School Shootings be reduced.
I think it's easy to blame mental illness. It's harder to fathom someone did this just because they are evil.
As I'm working towards becoming an officer of the law, this just got me thinking how would I handle this? I thought about my old elementary school, about all the worst locations and situations he could create. How a stray bullet could probably break through one of those cheap walls and hit a child. About getting jumped by the suspect. Seeing the dead children and teachers. It's truly nightmarish all around.
I would like to thank the officers who took him down. I know they will be spending the next 24-82 hours awake, giving statements and being investigated for destroying this animal. Their thanks is to be investigated for a federal crime. I wish them peace from this event.
I can only express my sadness to the people slain and the families destroyed by this act. I know no thing I say or do can rectify or heal this. I am sorry for their loss.
d-usa wrote: For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, .223 doesn't really tell you anything beyond the size of the round. Someone on twitter had posted a picture of a fully kitted out M4 and said something to the effect of "This is a .223 rifle. How is this even legal?" A .223 can also be a simple bolt action hunting rifle. There is a huge difference in effective application of those two weapons, even though they use the same round.
Was it from Buzzfeed? Lol I was given the same thing...
d-usa wrote: For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
The federal gun number is the NCIS background check.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
This. The gun violence is a symptom. The cause is mental illness. if we had better methods for people to identify and deal with mental helath issues; we would see School Shootings be reduced.
I think it's easy to blame mental illness. It's harder to fathom someone did this just because they are evil.
And it is all too easy to think there is one trigger.
As more information comes out, it will become more clear and making a simple statement like "someone did this just because they are evil" is so blatantly ill-informed that you might as well have said "He did it because he was crazy".
As I'm working towards becoming an officer of the law, this just got me thinking how would I handle this? I thought about my old elementary school, about all the worst locations and situations he could create. How a stray bullet could probably break through one of those cheap walls and hit a child. About getting jumped by the suspect. Seeing the dead children and teachers. It's truly nightmarish all around.
I would like to thank the officers who took him down. I know they will be spending the next 24-82 hours awake, giving statements and being investigated for destroying this animal. Their thanks is to be investigated for a federal crime. I wish them peace from this event.
I can only express my sadness to the people slain and the families destroyed by this act. I know no thing I say or do can rectify or heal this. I am sorry for their loss.
Let me put it like this.
If you're going to express statements like this?
You are not the kind of person I want working in law enforcement with me.
CDK wrote: Even more reasons for my family to home school.
While part of me wants to blame guns, I actually blame the lack of mental health care in our country. Not only is there the stigma of getting help but then you have have to pay a lot of money to get it.
This. The gun violence is a symptom. The cause is mental illness. if we had better methods for people to identify and deal with mental helath issues; we would see School Shootings be reduced.
I think it's easy to blame mental illness. It's harder to fathom someone did this just because they are evil.
And it is all too easy to think there is one trigger.
As more information comes out, it will become more clear and making a simple statement like "someone did this just because they are evil" is so blatantly ill-informed that you might as well have said "He did it because he was crazy".
As I'm working towards becoming an officer of the law, this just got me thinking how would I handle this? I thought about my old elementary school, about all the worst locations and situations he could create. How a stray bullet could probably break through one of those cheap walls and hit a child. About getting jumped by the suspect. Seeing the dead children and teachers. It's truly nightmarish all around.
I would like to thank the officers who took him down. I know they will be spending the next 24-82 hours awake, giving statements and being investigated for destroying this animal. Their thanks is to be investigated for a federal crime. I wish them peace from this event.
I can only express my sadness to the people slain and the families destroyed by this act. I know no thing I say or do can rectify or heal this. I am sorry for their loss.
Let me put it like this.
If you're going to express statements like this?
You are not the kind of person I want working in law enforcement with me.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, .223 doesn't really tell you anything beyond the size of the round. Someone on twitter had posted a picture of a fully kitted out M4 and said something to the effect of "This is a .223 rifle. How is this even legal?" A .223 can also be a simple bolt action hunting rifle. There is a huge difference in effective application of those two weapons, even though they use the same round.
Was it from Buzzfeed? Lol I was given the same thing...
It was retweeted and repeated by a bunch of people...demonstrating that ignorance is contagious. That's probably a little harsh as it's natural when people are as emotionally charged as they are right now, but at best it's people bandwagoning around a cause without doing a little bit of fact checking. At worst, it's straight up propaganda to promote a cause.
d-usa wrote: For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
The federal gun number is the NCIS background check.
Thanks, I knew it was some sort of check but I couldn't remember the name of it.
Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, .223 doesn't really tell you anything beyond the size of the round. Someone on twitter had posted a picture of a fully kitted out M4 and said something to the effect of "This is a .223 rifle. How is this even legal?" A .223 can also be a simple bolt action hunting rifle. There is a huge difference in effective application of those two weapons, even though they use the same round.
Was it from Buzzfeed? Lol I was given the same thing...
It was retweeted and repeated by a bunch of people...demonstrating that ignorance is contagious. That's probably a little harsh as it's natural when people are as emotionally charged as they are right now, but at best it's people bandwagoning around a cause without doing a little bit of fact checking. At worst, it's straight up propaganda to promote a cause.
Yeah... I have no problem with those that think we should adjust gun control laws (within reason), and they gang up on any logical argument coming from the other side, and just spit out anything without thinking about it...
Note: there are these types of people on both sides of the gun control argument. I'm just not on the "REGULATE REGULATE!" side of things...
And it is all too easy to think there is one trigger.
As more information comes out, it will become more clear and making a simple statement like "someone did this just because they are evil" is so blatantly ill-informed that you might as well have said "He did it because he was crazy".
While there may be a much longer and more detailed explanation, it still boils down to anyone who deliberately shoots a 5 year old kid is evil and/or crazy
Maelstrom808 wrote: Yeah, .223 doesn't really tell you anything beyond the size of the round. Someone on twitter had posted a picture of a fully kitted out M4 and said something to the effect of "This is a .223 rifle. How is this even legal?" A .223 can also be a simple bolt action hunting rifle. There is a huge difference in effective application of those two weapons, even though they use the same round.
Was it from Buzzfeed? Lol I was given the same thing...
It was retweeted and repeated by a bunch of people...demonstrating that ignorance is contagious. That's probably a little harsh as it's natural when people are as emotionally charged as they are right now, but at best it's people bandwagoning around a cause without doing a little bit of fact checking. At worst, it's straight up propaganda to promote a cause.
Yeah... I have no problem with those that think we should adjust gun control laws (within reason), and they gang up on any logical argument coming from the other side, and just spit out anything without thinking about it...
Note: there are these types of people on both sides of the gun control argument. I'm just not on the "REGULATE REGULATE!" side of things...
Absolutely. It happens over every issue. Human nature, I guess. Personally, I think there should be more gun regulation as well as more gun education, but am against the outright banning of weapons
d-usa wrote: For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
The federal gun number is the NCIS background check.
Thanks, I knew it was some sort of check but I couldn't remember the name of it.
Interesting it always took an hour or two for my background check to clear fully. But then we do NCIS and CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) background checks here and CBI can take it's sweet time when it wants to.
d-usa wrote: For all my weapons so far I just had to walk into the store, fill out the paper, they call the federal gun number, and 5 minutes later I'm out the door fully armed.
The federal gun number is the NCIS background check.
Thanks, I knew it was some sort of check but I couldn't remember the name of it.
Interesting it always took an hour or two for my background check to clear fully. But then we do NCIS and CBI (Colorado Bureau of Investigation) background checks here and CBI can take it's sweet time when it wants to.
They always expect mine to take a while, I think it is my dual citizenship that makes them concerned. But it's never taken more than a few minutes for me. My brothers (two of them) always take a while, my parents are remarried and I ended up with two brothers with the same first and last name and similar social security numbers. So the system seems to always flag them or makes some sort of hassle for them.
I would like to thank the officers who took him down. I know they will be spending the next 24-82 hours awake, giving statements and being investigated for destroying this animal. Their thanks is to be investigated for a federal crime. I wish them peace from this event.
The fact that you are:
1) Associating the shooter as an "animal" is despicable. He was a human being, same as you or I. His actions do not mandate any kind of "special consideration" on the part of officers, beyond the fact that he was armed and they would have to utilize caution accordingly. Treating it as anything more than that is unacceptable in the eyes of any department OR its overseers.
and
2) Implying that the officers are "unappreciated" due to the fact that they are going to be investigated, which is actually a routine thing in officer involved shootings.
They know what will happen if they pull the trigger. They also know that it is a requirement to ensure that they are not abusing their station.
What officers want to do or how they feel about a suspect should never affect how they handle a situation. If it comes out that they gunned the man down after he had surrendered, there is going to be a public perception that the officers should have been commended for their actions--but the officers know that is not what they are supposed to do.
The fact that you are:
1) Associating the shooter as an "animal" is despicable. He was a human being, same as you or I. .
the shooter was not the same as me...
I live here in CT. Very very sad. But all reports released by the State police so far say "Newton police asked for assistance and upon state police arriving they entered the school"... Why wait for state police? Get in their and do something, i don't understand.
Sad fact is you can't treat maniacs, and your not gonna abolish guns or peoples rights to get them. Even if you did, I could drive to Hartford Ct and still buy a gun right off the street. Perhaps tougher gun laws is the start, ZERO tolerance. Perhaps identify that "US Marshals will be distributed through random schools". Like they did with random planes. You know you see a police officer carrying a gun and society see's and accepts it. There is a town in Texas,North Dakota, and I think UTAH that has open carry of hand guns. Everyone see's it and accepts it. That town in Texas has the lowest Gun related crimes in the country. Perhaps we train some teachers, let them go through those extensive back ground checks and investigations as a police officer. It would seem weird at first but people would accept it as the norm sooner of later.
And before someone tells me "promoting more good guys to have guns would only lead to more shootings". Please provide any creditable study of any kind that would back the statement.
I feel terrible for what has happened, went and grabbed my 11 year out of school early. The Middle school had over 20 parents grabbing their kids and hugging them on the way out.
Forgiveness and tolerance is good to believe in, but sometimes laws and stiffer punishments need to be instituted to set examples.
In defense of your more good guys with guns points, if you look at one of the points in d-usa's link, more guns does not mean more shootings... Israel and Switzerland are proof...
I live here in CT. Very very sad. But all reports released by the State police so far say "Newton police asked for assistance and upon state police arriving they entered the school"... Why wait for state police? Get in their and do something, i don't understand.
Unless we know exactly what was going on when Newton PD got there, we can't really judge them for not going in right away.
d3m01iti0n wrote: You guys still arguing about gun control?!? STFU already. A gun is directed by a PERSON. Complain about the PERSON.
Back to the real issues.
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
If I had to speculate, it was likely because the State Police operate a specialist unit with more experience than Newton's police in situations like this.
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
Clearly it looks like one:
Although I know (and you know) that it shoots just as fast (or slow) as any other semi-automatic rifle, and the true definition of an assault rifle (ability to fire a burst or fully automatic) doesn't matter when the gun is scary looking.
If I had to speculate, it was likely because the State Police operate a specialist unit with more experience than Newton's police in situations like this.
That's my thought as well. I don't know if there was still shooting going on when Newton PD got there or not.
I have a feeling that as actual behavioral experts look into the shooter's life, it'll come out that he had psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies, just like the little gakpile that shot-up Columbine HS.
Sure both boyz had been hienously tomented by bullies, but the ringleader was a borderline sociopath who had little to no empathy. There's only 1 solution for that type of crazy, and that's to put such an individual down like a rabid animal because you can't learn a concience; you're either born with one or your not.
Most mass shooters who are mentally ill such as severly depressed or just angry at an individual/group tend to act out against what's specifically peeved them off, or else just take their own life in a less destructive & catastrophic way.
Someone though who goes after the most vulnerable & innocent such as young children, especially after they've killed their intended target/s tend to just be screwed up fethers who can't be helped and need to be locked away in a deep dark place for scociety's protection.
A sad & tragic day for those poor families, an entire community and anyone who can empathise with such young & truely innocent victims.
'May God stand between you and harm, in all the empty places you much walk'
- Ancient Egyptian blessing
If I had to speculate, it was likely because the State Police operate a specialist unit with more experience than Newton's police in situations like this.
That's my thought as well. I don't know if there was still shooting going on when Newton PD got there or not.
Just saw this on the news:
Police did not discharge their weapons at any time when responding at the school, police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. However, he could not confirm whether the suspected shooter - who died at the scene - killed himself, saying that would have to be determined by the medical examiner.
Which makes me think that there was no shots being fired when Newton PD got there, and that they might not have known if he was still in there setting up a trap or if he is holding kids hostage. Which would explain the wait for State Police or tactical units.
No, i think i will judge the police officers of Newton. The police department gets a call from the school. "Lots of Gun shots fired, kids are hit". Off duty and on duty police officers respond immediately according to state police briefing. They then waited for state police and entered the school.
Kids are being shot, you swore an oath. GTF in the school immediately upon arrival, maybe, MAYBE wait for 1 cop for back up.
I can name 18 parents that would of ran into that school without guns to try to do something...
EDIT: i just saw the above post by d-usa, talking about what Paul Vance said. That is not what he said the first 2 times he did a briefing, an i was watching the briefing live.
The thing about "good" guys is who are the "good" guys? A good guy can snap sometimes too. He finds his wife in bed with his best friends and kills them both?
I'm not against guns or gun laws either. But crime and mental illness have underlying issues that need to be dealt with more than gun laws.
1) There is no URL in the screenshot.
2) This was posted on Wednesday, and if I know 4chan it would have dropped off well before Friday.
3) I admit that I don't know that much about 4chan, but the quote/reference number asking the OP "where?" doesn't point back to the OP.
4) There are so many "Ima kill everyone" threads on 4chan, what is the chance that somebody just screenshots them all before they drop off?
Of course I could be wrong, but I find it more likely that 4chan is twisted enough to joke about somebody posting that instead of this being real...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsilber wrote: No, i think i will judge the police officers of Newton. The police department gets a call from the school. "Lots of Gun shots fired, kids are hit". Off duty and on duty police officers respond immediately according to state police briefing. They then waited for state police and entered the school.
Kids are being shot, you swore an oath. GTF in the school immediately upon arrival, maybe, MAYBE wait for 1 cop for back up.
I can name 18 parents that would of ran into that school without guns to try to do something...
And I can tell you the name of 18 more victims.
I understand your rage. I used to work for the Fire Department. We would get the same kind of people yelling at us if we don't run into a burning building right away. But making more victims is not going to help anybody, so no Rambo style tactics.
CDK wrote: The thing about "good" guys is who are the "good" guys? A good guy can snap sometimes too. He finds his wife in bed with his best friends and kills them both?
I'm not against guns or gun laws either. But crime and mental illness have underlying issues that need to be dealt with more than gun laws.
but the pro's severely out weighs the cons. in 1998 i got my pistol permit, i had to do everything but give a DNA sample. I do not mind doing it and glad they have that kind of check. I go through the same check every 5 years. I admit i do not carry everywhere. But I had front row tickets to hobbit at 12:01 this morning, right by an emergency exit. Better believe i had my gun on me after the batman tragedy earlier this year.
It's a hoax...
1) Lack of url is telling
2) If it was posted on Wednesday, and on /b/ it would be gone 15 minutes later
3) It does reference back to the to OP normally, this image doesn't reference back to a post in the image
4) Highly likely
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
In this case, feel free to exchange the term with any ballistic instrument which has the capacity to kill and yound many that can be purchased by nearly anyone.
Really, what's the big deal with preventing psychos to buy guns?
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
In this case, feel free to exchange the term with any ballistic instrument which has the capacity to kill and yound many that can be purchased by nearly anyone.
I understand your rage. I used to work for the Fire Department. We would get the same kind of people yelling at us if we don't run into a burning building right away. But making more victims is not going to help anybody, so no Rambo style tactics.
:
there is no proof that 18 parents would of been killed. Closing distance on a Gun is considered 21 feet. Even a group of 3-4 has a chance. Now lets say 2 people, carrying guns, bullet proof vest, and trained with guns wearing a badge, has a significant chance.
I certainly do not mean to rage and im quite calm. I hold no offense to anything said here nor mean none. I am just saying my piece. 2 years ago we had a mass shooting here in manchester Ct. at the budweiser factory. And the cops on the scene did the same thing waiting on state police, it was determined 5-6 deaths were confirmed after the initial responders were on the scene.
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
In this case, feel free to exchange the term with any ballistic instrument which has the capacity to kill and yound many that can be purchased by nearly anyone.
Really, what's the big deal with preventing psychos to buy guns?
How do you know they'er psychos to begin with? That's the problem... there's no such thing as Minority Report.
Tsilber wrote: there is no proof that 18 parents would of been killed. Closing distance on a Gun is considered 21 feet. Even a group of 3-4 has a chance. Now lets say 2 people, carrying guns, bullet proof vest, and trained with guns wearing a badge, has a significant chance.
We've discussed closing distances and how it's a bad idea.
Also, a year ago a cop fired 13 rounds in 4.3 seconds hitting a suspect 11 times with a pistol... I don't have the training a cop does, but I can hit center mass pretty quickly too...
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
In this case, feel free to exchange the term with any ballistic instrument which has the capacity to kill and yound many that can be purchased by nearly anyone.
Really, what's the big deal with preventing psychos to buy guns?
Maybe because, it's very difficult if not impossible to tell if someone's a sociopath or has psychopathic tendencies or not? If the shooter just had 'mommy & daddy' issues, odds are he wouldn't have killed a bunch of 4 or 5 year old kids as well...
Just like if a kid is severly bullied and wants to kill their tormentors, they tend to only pick on that one group, (ie: "the jocks" who beat the crap out them on a daily basis), they don't tend go about killing their pre-meditated target/s and then blaze away at random/innocents who are likely wetting themselves in fear.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Dude! A lunatic picks up a gun and kills a whole kindergarden class, and you say that no, no, it wouldn't be a smart idea to deny lunatics access to guns?
I mean, you don't have to ban guns or anything, but please make a fething law that requires people to do a mental test before they buy an assault rifle for gods sake! It works really well in Europe!
Define "assault rifle."
In this case, feel free to exchange the term with any ballistic instrument which has the capacity to kill and yound many that can be purchased by nearly anyone.
So any gun that holds more than a few bullets?
Yeah maybe that's not an assault rifle, but still.... you don't want a nutjob to have easy access to even one of those, do you? Because of the amount of lunatics who go on killing sprees wit guns they just bought a few days ago for exactly that.....
Again, I'm in no way saying america should ban guns, just make them harder to get for mass murderers (in germany, the majority of killing sprees are commited with axes, knifes, swords and such, because we have laws that require thorough mental checks for going-to-be gun owners. We don't have near as many causalities here....
Tsilber wrote: there is no proof that 18 parents would of been killed. Closing distance on a Gun is considered 21 feet. Even a group of 3-4 has a chance. Now lets say 2 people, carrying guns, bullet proof vest, and trained with guns wearing a badge, has a significant chance.
We've discussed closing distances and how it's a bad idea.
Also, a year ago a cop fired 13 rounds in 4.3 seconds hitting a suspect 11 times with a pistol... I don't have the training a cop does, but I can hit center mass pretty quickly too...
Im not sure what your saying about the gun firing fast, but my argument was cops should of entered the school prior to waiting for state police.
But in Ct permit class's and police class's (which i've done both of). Statistics show a person getting within 21 feet of a person with a gun has a high rate of survival, of coarse using some sort of cover and charging the suspect not trying to run away.
But this is getting off base now, my pain is for those family members. I went to grab my daughter as i said earlier from her middle school on the oppisite side of the state. I like to think i know how those other parents are going through, but i can not imagine how terrible it is driving to that location wondering if your child is alive. I can;t imagine the pain for those who don't get to hug their children.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Im gonna drop out this discussion. Again i take no offense to what anyone said, and mean no offense with anything i said. Thank you all for your input and constructive comments and criticism on my comments.
you know Miyamoto Musashi said " do not turn you back on the various ways of this world"
but how can you not lose a little faith in humanity after seeing something like this.
Tsilber wrote: there is no proof that 18 parents would of been killed. Closing distance on a Gun is considered 21 feet. Even a group of 3-4 has a chance. Now lets say 2 people, carrying guns, bullet proof vest, and trained with guns wearing a badge, has a significant chance.
We've discussed closing distances and how it's a bad idea.
Also, a year ago a cop fired 13 rounds in 4.3 seconds hitting a suspect 11 times with a pistol... I don't have the training a cop does, but I can hit center mass pretty quickly too...
Im not sure what your saying about the gun firing fast, but my argument was cops should of entered the school prior to waiting for state police.
But in Ct permit class's and police class's (which i've done both of). Statistics show a person getting within 21 feet of a person with a gun has a high rate of survival, of coarse using some sort of cover and charging the suspect not trying to run away.
And for all we know there are no shots being fired at this time, and the shooter could be holding kids hostage, using them as a human shield, or set up some sort of bomb that will go off as soon as the PD enters the area. There are plenty of reasons not to go charging into a situation like that.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Not in Norway.
That guy in norway was not just some mad lunatic who went on a killing spree for the fun of it, he was a terrorist. That is a completely different thing... terrorists will nearly always get their intsruments of mass destruction from somwhere.
I was talking about nutjobs who feel a "sudden" urge to kill, and only have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun
Tsilber wrote: but how can you not lose a little faith in humanity after seeing something like this.
Because out of 300,000,000 or so people in the US, the number of people of people that have done something like this in the last 20 years would fit on a single school bus (which could then be set on fire and pushed off the nearest cliff).
Tsilber wrote: but how can you not lose a little faith in humanity after seeing something like this.
Because out of 300,000,000 or so people in the US, the number of people of people that have done something like this in the last 20 years would fit on a single school bus (which could then be set on fire and pushed off the nearest cliff).
You're right, thank you for your comment. But this one hits a little hard as it was 40 minutes away from the town i live in with my children. but i do appreciate your comment none the less, with all humility.
A truly sad day of events. I just hope that people keep a clear mind because in situations like this people will always go on a witch hunt. They shouldn't go all out against people owning guns in America. It was part of the founding blocks of its society. More gun awareness, education and screening for gun owners should be more stricked. But dont let a clouded mindset let you yell at the government to ban this and that.
Sensible controls and complete control over something are two different things. Just look at airport security in recent years, the TSA have been abusing so much of that power the government has given them. It would be sad to see that happen with gun laws too. Handing over total control to the government usually ends up with people in groups like the TSA abusing powers to give people less rights. I just dont want to see some old dude dragged from his house and slammed to the pavement by some new gun control squad because he owns 1 more bullet than the standard amount allowed or something like that.
It is certainly a good time to have a reasonable discussion about gun safety and gun control in our country. I don't buy the whole "now is not the time to talk about this" rhetoric, but the discussion needs to be calm and focused and not driven by emotions.
Hmmm, to cling to a law created when guns could fire 3 rounds a minute seems a little obtuse.
Obviously the gun itself is not to blame, and the classic argument is about cars causing lots of deaths, so why not ban driving, but last time I drove, there were a BOLLOCK load of rules about where, when and how I could drive. these rules seem to be lacking in the realm of gun ownership
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Not in Norway.
That guy in norway was not just some mad lunatic who went on a killing spree for the fun of it, he was a terrorist. That is a completely different thing... terrorists will nearly always get their intsruments of mass destruction from somwhere.
I was talking about nutjobs who feel a "sudden" urge to kill, and only have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun
And that peice of rat turd turned out to be (gasp!) a psychopath.
So please, until we can find a perfect test to alert gun sellers/regulators to "is this dude a crazy-pants psychopath/sociopath?", we can't keep guns out of their hands.
And if the nutt jobs can't get them legally, well, as you said, they'll find a way to get what they want/need to do these god-awful things.
Tsilber wrote: but how can you not lose a little faith in humanity after seeing something like this.
Because out of 300,000,000 or so people in the US, the number of people of people that have done something like this in the last 20 years would fit on a single school bus (which could then be set on fire and pushed off the nearest cliff).
You're right, thank you for your comment. But this one hits a little hard as it was 40 minutes away from the town i live in with my children. but i do thank you for your comment with a humility.
I do understand, and people should be shocked/horrified/saddened/pissed by this. I have a 4 yr old niece that is the love of my life, and I have no idea how I would even begin to deal with something like this happening to her. I also don't have a lot of faith in humanity, but for entirely reasons. However the average person you meet on the street is going to be a fairly decent human being who is far more likely to try to get a child out of harm's way rather than subject them to harm. What scares me is when people fall victim to mob mentality based on emotionally charged situations, be that despair, anger, fear, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
InquisitorVaron wrote:Until you can fit these nutters on one hand you've not done enough.
They'll still be nutters, they will simply find another tool.
d-usa wrote:It is certainly a good time to have a reasonable discussion about gun safety and gun control in our country. I don't buy the whole "now is not the time to talk about this" rhetoric, but the discussion needs to be calm and focused and not driven by emotions.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Not in Norway.
That guy in norway was not just some mad lunatic who went on a killing spree for the fun of it, he was a terrorist. That is a completely different thing... terrorists will nearly always get their intsruments of mass destruction from somwhere.
I was talking about nutjobs who feel a "sudden" urge to kill, and only have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun
And that peice of rat turd turned out to be (gasp!) a psychopath.
So please, until we can find a perfect test to alert gun sellers/regulators to "is this dude a crazy-pants psychopath/sociopath?", we can't keep guns out of their hands.
And if the nutt jobs can't get them legally, well, as you said, they'll find a way to get what they want/need to do these god-awful things.
Here's a large difference though:
The majority of these kinds of shootings are not akin to the Norway shootings. They are not done in a methodical, planned manner despite the appearance to us that they are because the shooter brings multiple guns.
The only "plan" these people have is to inflict as much damage as possible before they shuffle off this mortal coil. They acquire guns and intend to use them, no plan beyond that.
The "nutjobs who feel a sudden urge to kill and have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun" are usually people with very little in the way of run-ins with the police and thus are able to legally acquire guns.
Being unable to legally acquire guns within a short period of time would be another layer of 'protection' which could be added to prevent situations like this. As could mandatory screenings by mental health professionals, requirements of training with police agencies being involved, etc are other options which could easily be added.
For what it's worth, and despite the smack talk I will probably get by some friends and family I summed up my feelings on the old Facebook:
There will be lots if people calling for all kinds of stricter gun laws, and there will be lots of people saying that now is not the time for it. I think that it is as good a time as any to have a reasonable and calm discussion about gun safety and gun control. It needs to be a discussion that is free of emotions, which I admit will be hard at a time like this. We also need to acknowledge that this guy would not have been able to kill as many people as he did without a gun and accept that access to guns comes with a risk. On the anti-gun side we need to quit pretending that just because it looks big and scary it was an assault rifle. A regular old "hunting rifle" that is a semi-automatic will shoot just as fast and hold as many rounds as these so-called assault rifles. Making false claims about the abilities of weapons doesn't help the discussion. But it's a discussion that we need to have and it needs to focus on multiple levels: legislative review an improvements, enforcement of current laws, safe gun ownership, and factors apart from the actual guns itself such as screening and providing adequate services to people in need to prevent instances like this. If we want a strong 2nd amendment while having people with mental health issues then we need to make site we have a safe 2nd amendment and adequate services for people with mental health issues in a society where guns are prevalent.
As much as I hate to say it, I am not really surprised, and will not be surprised if we see another shooting event this holiday season.
Somehow I think that the low-lifes who do this sort of thing feed off of each other.
I do somewhat wonder where the school's duty officer was (if it had one). I know that both my middle school and high school had at least one sherriff/police officer at all times on the grounds during school and school events.
And I agree with d-usa.. Although I think we all know that when it comes to law makers and lobbyists, one of them will bring emotions to the table, and things will spiral out of control. It would be nice to see groups seriously look at the issue of gun "control" and come up with solutions that are relevant, viable, and acceptable by all law-abiding citizens and law enforcement alike.
There is not a single law that would have stopped this from happening. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a violation of civil rights. Forcing the mentally ill into treatment is a violation of civil rights. Identifying people as mentally ill who are not "in the system" is next to impossible if they are not symptomatic.
I would like to remind you guys that people who attempt to carry out copycat shootings are usually caught before they can do any harm. That's an example of the system working, I guess. The problem is that the system cannot predict or effectively defend against a lone gunman who acts without warning.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Not in Norway.
That guy in norway was not just some mad lunatic who went on a killing spree for the fun of it, he was a terrorist. That is a completely different thing... terrorists will nearly always get their intsruments of mass destruction from somwhere.
I was talking about nutjobs who feel a "sudden" urge to kill, and only have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun
And that peice of rat turd turned out to be (gasp!) a psychopath.
So please, until we can find a perfect test to alert gun sellers/regulators to "is this dude a crazy-pants psychopath/sociopath?", we can't keep guns out of their hands.
And if the nutt jobs can't get them legally, well, as you said, they'll find a way to get what they want/need to do these god-awful things.
That piece of rat turd, is, as i said, another kind of psycho, the one that plans. You can hardly do anything against those.
But you CAN stop the ones that go on a killing spree just for the "fun" of it. If they can't get hold of a gun, they'll go with an axe/bat/knife etc and inflicht waaay less damage.
And there ARE close to perfect tests to keep guns out of their hands.... you know, we have such tests in Europe, and they obviously work really well, because we don't have near as many shootings. We had this guy with an axe a few years ago, no deaths... there was a duche with an air pistol and a molotow cocktail, two dead... now if those had had access to real guns.... get the point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: There is not a single law that would have stopped this from happening. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a violation of civil rights. Forcing the mentally ill into treatment is a violation of civil rights. Identifying people as mentally ill who are not "in the system" is next to impossible if they are not symptomatic.
I would like to remind you guys that people who attempt to carry out copycat shootings are usually caught before they can do any harm. That's an example of the system working, I guess. The problem is that the system cannot predict or effectively defend against a lone gunman who acts without warning.
Preventing psycopaths from obtaining guns is NOT a violation of any right, for feths sake! If someone proves mentally unstable, DO NOT hand him a gun.... this is soooo simple. Again, (I've already said that half a dozen times) it works where I live. It works really well. There IS a law here, and a similar one in america would possibly have stopped this guy (or at least he'd have been forced to use something less dangerous, not a rifle)
The majority of these kinds of shootings are not akin to the Norway shootings. They are not done in a methodical, planned manner despite the appearance to us that they are because the shooter brings multiple guns.
The only "plan" these people have is to inflict as much damage as possible before they shuffle off this mortal coil. They acquire guns and intend to use them, no plan beyond that.
The "nutjobs who feel a sudden urge to kill and have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun" are usually people with very little in the way of run-ins with the police and thus are able to legally acquire guns.
There are no "nutjobs who feel sudden urge to kill". People don't "snap", it's a myth. Events like this ALWAYS are preceded by long-term psychical problems and developing psychosis. And they are always planned in advance, sometimes years, just like the Norway guy. However, as these people are often relative loners, it's sometimes difficult to detect the warning signs, this may create illusion of people suddenly "snapping".
Firearms restrictions actually make little difference to these people. Since they plan in advance, they also plan for acquiring suitable weapons for the job.
Preventing psycopaths from obtaining guns is NOT a violation of any right, for feths sake! If someone proves mentally unstable, DO NOT hand him a gun.... this is soooo simple. Again, (I've already said that half a dozen times) it works where I live. It works really well. There IS a law here, and a similar one in america would possibly have stopped this guy (or at least he'd have been forced to use something less dangerous, not a rifle)
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Plenty of school shootings and mass murders in Europe in recent years. Including Germany...
Let's not use stereotypes and labels that might offend members of the board. Thanks
--AgeOfEgos
I don't really understand what the point was. Go to a mall. Kill some decadent rich people. An elementary school? Why? What was he thinking? What rational person kills children, the most innocent and taintless things in existence?
Why did he want to kill his mother? I can't read about this. It's too insane.
The majority of these kinds of shootings are not akin to the Norway shootings. They are not done in a methodical, planned manner despite the appearance to us that they are because the shooter brings multiple guns.
The only "plan" these people have is to inflict as much damage as possible before they shuffle off this mortal coil. They acquire guns and intend to use them, no plan beyond that.
The "nutjobs who feel a sudden urge to kill and have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun" are usually people with very little in the way of run-ins with the police and thus are able to legally acquire guns.
There are no "nutjobs who feel sudden urge to kill". People don't "snap", it's a myth. Events like this ALWAYS are preceded by long-term psychical problems and developing psychosis. And they are always planned in advance, sometimes years, just like the Norway guy. However, as these people are often relative loners, it's sometimes difficult to detect the warning signs, this may create illusion of people suddenly "snapping".
Firearms restrictions actually make little difference to these people. Since they plan in advance, they also plan for acquiring suitable weapons for the job.
They DO "snap" in a way.... sure, they all have had severe problems in the past.... but the actual shooting is often done on "short notice". They won't plan it the way this guy in Norway did. He thought he was on a fething crusade, these nutjobs simply want to inflict paint and death, NAO.
Preventing psycopaths from obtaining guns is NOT a violation of any right, for feths sake! If someone proves mentally unstable, DO NOT hand him a gun.... this is soooo simple. Again, (I've already said that half a dozen times) it works where I live. It works really well. There IS a law here, and a similar one in america would possibly have stopped this guy (or at least he'd have been forced to use something less dangerous, not a rifle)
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Plenty of school shootings and mass murders in Europe in recent years. Including Germany...
Never with anything more than a pistol. And one killer in Germany stole the gun from his fathers gun safe.... so..... how likeley is that going to happen again, the father having a gun safe (there are VERY few gun owners here) compared to the shootings in the US (how many have there been in 2012 so far?...) where the killer literally just has to go to the next street corner to buy a gun. That is simply. Not. Posible. in Germany. Face it, restrictions DO save lives. And anyway, why would you care? Are you a psycho? No? then you can still buy a gun, right? Nobody want to stop YOU, dude.
- the Bushmaster (aka: the semi-automatic "assault" rifle) was in the car and apparently not used.
- the guns were legally purchased and legally owned. They were purchased by the mother it seems. So even if the son was certified crazy it would have done nothing to stop the sales of the weapons, unless we want to get into not allowing family members if crazy people owning guns.
- so that would shift the focus towards responsible gun ownership. Although I can't say that I would be concerned with a 20 year old family member having access to my guns. If that person had other issues I know about then that might be a different story.
They DO "snap" in a way.... sure, they all have had severe problems in the past.... but the actual shooting is often done on "short notice". They won't plan it the way this guy in Norway did. He thought he was on a fething crusade, these nutjobs simply want to inflict paint and death, NAO.
You are simply completely wrong here. School shooters have been excessively profiled. All they planned their acts meticulously. Same for most other spree killers. Columbine guys planned for months. Ditto for Virginia Tech guy, or Finnish school shooters.
Never with anything more than a pistol. And one killer in Germany stole the gun from his fathers gun safe.... so..... how likeley is that going to happen again, the father having a gun safe (there are VERY few gun owners here) compared to the shootings in the US (how many have there been in 2012 so far?...)
There are LOTS of gun owners in Germany. In fact in many ways, German gun laws are less severe than in some US states or cities. And yes, semi-automatic rifles are very common in most European countries. Heck, some countries hand them over for Army reservists.
They DO "snap" in a way.... sure, they all have had severe problems in the past.... but the actual shooting is often done on "short notice". They won't plan it the way this guy in Norway did. He thought he was on a fething crusade, these nutjobs simply want to inflict paint and death, NAO.
You are simply completely wrong here. School shooters have been excessively profiled. All they planned their acts meticulously. Same for most other spree killers. Columbine guys planned for months. Ditto for Virginia Tech guy, or Finnish school shooters.
The Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters are considered by many to be the exceptions, not the rule.
They "planned their acts meticulously" because for them it was not a "snap" decision.
Most other "spree killers" do not fall within the same vein. The only comparison is that both categories plan to kill more than one person.
How many times does this comic need to get linked? The last time I saw it get posted relevantly (on another forum) was a whole 2 weeks ago.
Oh, and China was mentioned early on in this thread. Another school, another attacker. 22 wounded by a knife attack. 22 wounded vs 26 dead. I know which one I'd prefer.
They DO "snap" in a way.... sure, they all have had severe problems in the past.... but the actual shooting is often done on "short notice". They won't plan it the way this guy in Norway did. He thought he was on a fething crusade, these nutjobs simply want to inflict paint and death, NAO.
They won't plan? Why not? The aurora guy felt he had a mission. He had a plan. How long did he have it? I don't know. Can you inside their heads?
Never with anything more than a pistol. And one killer in Germany stole the gun from his fathers gun safe.... so..... how likeley is that going to happen again, the father having a gun safe (there are VERY few gun owners here) compared to the shootings in the US (how many have there been in 2012 so far?...) where the killer literally just has to go to the next street corner to buy a gun. That is simply. Not. Posible. in Germany. Face it, restrictions DO save lives. And anyway, why would you care? Are you a psycho? No? then you can still buy a gun, right? Nobody want to stop YOU, dude.
A pistol is plent scary. Fires a bullet as well as the rest of them, sometimes better.
Germany has some of the strictest gun laws around and have never really had a period of high gun ownership. Our two countries are not the same.
You can't go to the street corner to buy a gun. It takes time, depending on who you are. Does the system need improvement? Yes. I totally support psychological evaluations for gun owners. It is difficult to get a conceal and carry permit, which is what would be most useful in these situations. Furthermore(from my experience) teachers even with a conceal and carry permit aren't allowed to have a weapon on campus.
Suicide rates are going up. We really need better mental health care.
When I was younger tragedys like this never really bothered me much (that sounds cold, but you never really understand) but now I have my own son, and to think that somebody has rampaged through a school kiling children so young actually makes me sick and upset.
The anquish as a parent of thinking something this bad could/has happened to your child is enough to cripple you with emotion. Jesus if that was my sons school I would be terrified, in fact words could not describe how I would feel, god only knows what these parents are going through over there.
My heart really goe's out to them, and where I understand the relief some parents got when seeing their own child come out of the school alive, they should and everyone around the world should spare a thought for the other parents that have had their children cruel and unjustly taken away from them by this pathetic excuse of a human being.
No amount of condolences will ever take away the parents pain, we can all only pray that their suffering eases in time :(
From the UK to America, our thoughts are with you. May that sick b*****d rot in hell!!!!!!
Tsilber wrote: but how can you not lose a little faith in humanity after seeing something like this.
Because out of 300,000,000 or so people in the US, the number of people of people that have done something like this in the last 20 years would fit on a single school bus (which could then be set on fire and pushed off the nearest cliff).
Quoted for truth. The mental picture of a bus full of scum bags burning merrily is a wonderful mental picture.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
How many times does this comic need to get linked? The last time I saw it get posted relevantly (on another forum) was a whole 2 weeks ago.
Oh, and China was mentioned early on in this thread. Another school, another attacker. 22 wounded by a knife attack. 22 wounded vs 26 dead. I know which one I'd prefer.
September 18, 2001: The first of several letters laced with weaponized anthrax are delivered through the US postal system infecting 22 people, five of which die. No guns were used.
September 11, 2001: Terrorists flew three planes into building killing over 3000 people in total. No guns were used.
April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of fertalizer into the basement of the Murrah Federal Building and detonated it killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns were used.
February 26, 1993: Ramzi Yousef and his fellow conspirators detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center killing six people and injuring more than one thousand. No guns were used.
Are these are also preferable since no guns were used?
So you're going back at least 11 years to match what's happened twice in the past few months.
It's not about making killing go away - that's impossible. But to say we can't reduce it is disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst. Some of these people will find a way to kill, but it won't be as efficient at the job. Others are not so pre-planned, and getting past the deadly heat of the moment is much harder with a gun involved.
How would the incident with the Chiefs player have panned out if he had no gun?
April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of fertalizer into the basement of the Murrah Federal Building and detonated it killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns were used.
Woah. That many? I was watching a documentary about Neo-Nazism a couple weeks ago, and it mentioned that Mcveigh got his ideas from a guy, who was sort of a Nazi, who got his ideas from a sort-of-nazi, who got his ideas from a disciple of George Lincoln Rockwell. It just seemed like they were trying to place the blame on some sort of backwards racist philosophy, when in reality, McVeigh was just a nutbag, and while his philosophies may have escalated his actions, at the core, he was just insane.
Anyway, crazy people will always find horrible ways to kill people, Guns or not. Truth be told, I'm more worried about guns as an intimidation tool. You can make a person do anything if you put a gun in their face, or in the movies, in the small of their back. That's a scary thought.
Breotan wrote: [September 18, 2001: The first of several letters laced with weaponized anthrax are delivered through the US postal system infecting 22 people, five of which die. No guns were used.
Shortly therafter, the USPS installed biological detection systems to prevent that from happening again.
Breotan wrote: [September 11, 2001: Terrorists flew three planes into building killing over 3000 people in total. No guns were used.
Among many other things, airplane cockpit doors were hardened to prevent such an attack from recurring.
Breotan wrote: [April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of fertalizer into the basement of the Murrah Federal Building and detonated it killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns were used.
After this happened, large fertilizer purchases began being tracked, and suspicious ones investigated by the FBI.
Breotan wrote: [February 26, 1993: Ramzi Yousef and his fellow conspirators detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center killing six people and injuring more than one thousand. No guns were used.
After this happened, truck barriers were installed at sensitive locations to prevent this from recurring.
We can never stop madmen from engaging in mass murder, but we could at least try to find ways to prevent them from doing the same sort of thing over and over again. All of these major attacks were addressed in some way. We don't even try with gun violence, not in any meaningful way. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but we should stop pretending this isn't actually a problem.
Don't call me cruel, because this is very bad, I'm not saying it isn't, but I think the media should stop latching on to stories like this. It desensitises us to violence and horrific acts like this if we hear about them all the time. It could give other nutcases ideas. Finally, can you imagine what the parents or loved ones of the dead think of all the coverage?
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them. Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check. Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them. The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous! A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold.
That's my 2 cents, I'm not sure if it would work, but there you go.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Don't call me cruel, because this is very bad, I'm not saying it isn't, but I think the media should stop latching on to stories like this. It desensitises us to violence and horrific acts like this if we hear about them all the time. It could give other nutcases ideas. Finally, can you imagine what the parents or loved ones of the dead think of all the coverage?
Also, gun laws need to be ramped up. If a country is going to allow guns, then very strict regulations need to put upon them. Someone owning a gun would need to have a background check. Only specially licensed shops should sell them, and there should not be many of them. The idea of selling guns in hypermarkets is ridiculous! A person should only be allowed to own one gun and a limited amount of ammunition. Finally, only small handguns should be sold.
That's my 2 cents, I'm not sure if it would work, but there you go.
-he didn't buy the guns, so no background checks would have shown anything
-the person that purchased the guns passed all background checks and it seems like there was no reason why she shouldn't have
-he killed everyone using small handgun
-if somebody buys small amounts of ammo over a period of time they would still have a bunch
None of the suggestions would have made a difference.
According to BBC: These included two handguns - a Glock and a Sig Sauer - and a .223-calibre rifle, reports said.
Whether he used it or not is irrelevant - he still had it.
Someone would have bought the guns that did the shooting.
I'll clarify my ammo point - a person should only have a limited amount of ammo. Whether s/he buys it all in one go or in several goes does not matter - s/he is only allowed a small amount of ammunition.
Whilst it's too late, the suggestions I made could prevent further shootings like htis.
1) There is no URL in the screenshot.
2) This was posted on Wednesday, and if I know 4chan it would have dropped off well before Friday.
3) I admit that I don't know that much about 4chan, but the quote/reference number asking the OP "where?" doesn't point back to the OP.
4) There are so many "Ima kill everyone" threads on 4chan, what is the chance that somebody just screenshots them all before they drop off?
Of course I could be wrong, but I find it more likely that 4chan is twisted enough to joke about somebody posting that instead of this being real...
This isn't even all that rare for 4chan. I think this is like the 4 th mass shooting spree that has been announced on /b/, and something like the 8 or 9th murder? It usually gets a couple a year. And in counterpoint.
1.) Looks like the screen cap was taken with the 4chan mobile phone app, url not necessarily onscreen unless thumbed for.
2.) Threads advertising someones impending an hero are often capped and saved by anons in the event that OP actually delivers.
3.) That's a byproduct of the phone app.
4.) This is pretty much what happens. There have been corroborating screen caps for OP's delivering of the goods dating back 4 years. That's the longest I personally know of.
Saying 'ban guns from crazy peaople' is just as effective as Toronto City Council trying to ban the sale of all bullets within city limits after the Eaton Center mass shooting or the Danzig Streetparty mass shooting.
Yet banning guns from crazy people seems to work really well in Europe....
Not in Norway.
That guy in norway was not just some mad lunatic who went on a killing spree for the fun of it, he was a terrorist. That is a completely different thing... terrorists will nearly always get their intsruments of mass destruction from somwhere.
I was talking about nutjobs who feel a "sudden" urge to kill, and only have to go to the next street corner to buy a gun
The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia. And I'm not even 100% sure on that.
That said, it's not that these people are crazy and have access to guns, it's the culture in which these people live in. Europe has a different culture, Canada has a different culture, America's culture for one reason or another just results in more mass shooters than anyother first world nation. Even though there are several nations/populations that have a gun ownership level roughly equal to that of the United States.
Bongo_clive wrote:Hmmm, to cling to a law created when guns could fire 3 rounds a minute seems a little obtuse.
Obviously the gun itself is not to blame, and the classic argument is about cars causing lots of deaths, so why not ban driving, but last time I drove, there were a BOLLOCK load of rules about where, when and how I could drive. these rules seem to be lacking in the realm of gun ownership
There are so many rules in the realm of gun ownership. The thing is though that they aren't frequently broken, but when they are people have a tendency, to, you know, get shot.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: It desensitises us to violence and horrific acts like this if we hear about them all the time.
If the actions are ignored, then the result is the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Having the rifle doesn't matter since of was left in the car, was not used, and didn't kill a single person.
It doesn't matter either way because in this case, as with most cases of shooting in places assumed to be safe, the handguns were more than sufficient.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: According to BBC:
These included two handguns - a Glock and a Sig Sauer - and a .223-calibre rifle, reports said.
Whether he used it or not is irrelevant - he still had it.
Someone would have bought the guns that did the shooting.
I'll clarify my ammo point - a person should only have a limited amount of ammo. Whether s/he buys it all in one go or in several goes does not matter - s/he is only allowed a small amount of ammunition.
Whilst it's too late, the suggestions I made could prevent further shootings like htis.
Amount of total ammunition, while certainly a factor, is generally not the main one when it comes to the capability of a weapon to kill large groups of people. It's all about magazine size, cyclic rate, and magazine reload rate, followed by round type.
In Canada we have magazine restrictions. No Semi-Auto Longbarreled fire arm can have a magazine that holds more than 4-5 rounds. (with the exception of .22 calibre rifles) and shotguns are not allowed to have a magazine size capable of loading more than 4 shells. Though that's usually done through the use of plugs, and the only way they check is take your gun and cycle it 4 times.
The only mass shootings I can think of right now that were both done with legally purchased firearms had been illegally loaded.
whembly wrote: It's not the guns, or the "gun culture" that does this...
Its a disturbed individual did this.
It isn't just gun culture, that's true, but there is definitely a cultural component to the high rate of violent crime in the US (with or without guns), but that's for another thread.
There are more legally owned guns in the United States than pretty much all the militaries in all the countries of all the world. I've heard figures ranging from 160-300 million guns in private ownership.
Whether you believe in gun control or not, Pandora's box is already open and you can't close it again. Even if you stopped selling guns today, you'd still have these shootings for years. If you attempted to confiscate the guns, you'd have death on a scale that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park.
There are a lot of reasons I believe you have these mass shootings. Mental illness going unreported is one. Medicating mental health symptoms instead of treating the root causes is another. A society that has promoted maximalist positions and a me first attitude is a huge part of our problem. We've raised our children to believe that they are a unique snowflake and that their feelings and issues are valuable and important. However, we've not really given them the skills to cope with these feelings.
These young, anti-social, and often sociopathic young men are usually ostracized by their peers, ignored by their parents, and have been raised in a society that tells them that "men" suck it up and deal with their own problems. When these kids don't have the tools to deal with their problems in a civilized way, they turn to their baser instincts and make those that have hurt them (or just society at large) pay for their pain.
Quark wrote: So you're going back at least 11 years to match what's happened twice in the past few months.
It's not about making killing go away - that's impossible. But to say we can't reduce it is disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst. Some of these people will find a way to kill, but it won't be as efficient at the job. Others are not so pre-planned, and getting past the deadly heat of the moment is much harder with a gun involved.
How would the incident with the Chiefs player have panned out if he had no gun?
How many people were killed by drunk drivers in the past few months? I say we ban alcohol or limit how many bottles someone can buy in a set time span.
InquisitorVaron wrote: Still guns should be given out stricter and automatic weapons banned.
That and made illegal to take off your premises unless in a safe box.
Until you can fit these nutters on one hand you've not done enough.
You think I can walk into my local shop and pick up an automatic weapon?
I've never understood why firm gun control advocates never bother to learn all that much about the actual state of firearm sales in this country, not to mention a little more about what it is they're trying to ban. An AR-15 needs to go, but an M-14 clone is A-OK because, as far as they can tell, it doesn't look as scary?
In this story's opening paragraphs it states how the shooters mother teaches at the school and is highly regarded there.
It also states that she was killed at home and that her son has some sort of "dispute" with her.
The shooters brother has told police that the shooter was Autistic.
It makes me wonder if he killed his mother first at home and then went to her kindergarten class to kill what she cared so much about, her precious students.
The United States has dismantled so much of its former mental health system because of abuses of care, but we clearly are not doing enough to help manage and get support for people with these different mental and behavioral health needs.
This is such a major tragedy, I don't even have words to describe how I feel. I have daughters that age and would be destroyed if that had happened to them.
Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.
Bull Gak
Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.
Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.
Bull Gak
Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.
I think maybe he is talking about states requiring that mental health issues be reported? I don't think that they are required to report in Oklahoma other than court ordered mental health actions.
My impression of the background check required to buy a firearm is that it spits out a yes or no result based solely on whether the subject has been convicted of a felony.
That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.
The United States has dismantled so much of its former mental health system because of abuses of care, but we clearly are not doing enough to help manage and get support for people with these different mental and behavioral health needs.
It isn't just the mental health system. One of the quickest ways to disqualify yourself from employment is by explaining a period of unemployment by way of mental health issues which, of course, encourages people to avoid treatment.
AustonT wrote: That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.
Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?
Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.
AustonT wrote: That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.
Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?
Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.
I believe he's saying that felony convictions are almost certain to red flag a NICS check, while other things that should sometimes do not, often due to the fact that they were never reported properly.
AustonT wrote: That's not entirely how it works. It's just that felony reporting is universal or near universal. And everything else is...well the 8 ball metaphor is apt.
Are you saying gun store employees are fed information by this system upon which to make their own judgment calls?
Talking with my dad, who has worked at a gun store here in VA for over a decade now, his understanding is that if a background check to purchase a firearm is run for a person who has been convicted of a felony, a warrant is automatically issued for that person's arrest. I don't claim any first-hand knowledge of this.
No the NICS gives a clear yes/no. The variable is WHAT causes that yes or no. There's a lot of errors and uneven reporting state to state. Guys with convictions for spousal abuse can walk out with a wheel barrel ful of guns, but a vet that has trouble sleeping is denied. Obviously I made those up, but you get the idea.
Anyone that uses thier real name and address, has a felony conviction, and tries to buy a gun: deserves what they get.
A sig, a glock, and a Cheap bushmaster AR? Was the shooter's mother a /k/ lurker?
Mm, not sure I'm trying to make fun of the situation. I guess it's a defense mechanism.
The United States has dismantled so much of its former mental health system because of abuses of care, but we clearly are not doing enough to help manage and get support for people with these different mental and behavioral health needs.
You mean lobotomies, asylums and fluffy white rooms? I'm not being funny. Psychology and mental illness were on par with voodoo up until at least the seventies. Hardly anyone knew anything, and they had no idea how to treat total nutjobs, so they locked them up and tried insane things on them, because, hey, they're nuts, who cares? There was hardly any procedure or method, just isolation. It was cruel and unusual punishment.
It was only recently that psychology and genetics came into the picture and actually provided the means for people to become well again. So, basically, this "mental health care system" has never existed. And it will continue to not exist, as long as it isn't profitable.
So it seems the Facebook page for Mass Effect - yes, the video game - has been getting hit with a bunch of spam because Ryan Lamza - the guy initially misidentified as the shooter, who turned out to be the brother of the shooter - had it in his "likes."
I don't see how we can fail to have a rational national discourse with such luminaries among us.
whembly wrote: It's not the guns, or the "gun culture" that does this...
Its a disturbed individual did this.
It isn't just gun culture, that's true, but there is definitely a cultural component to the high rate of violent crime in the US (with or without guns), but that's for another thread.
Well actually, from what I think I know the violent crime rate in America and Canada is similar, it's just the weapon of choice is the significant difference when it comes to mortality rates. When you're unskilled with its use a knife or a bat is somewhat hard to kill someone with given the capabilities of modern medicine. For instance, pretty much all of the gang related violence in the city I lived near when growing up was committed with knucks, knives, and a variety of blunt objects. The amount of people actually killed was relatively low, but the assault rate was high. Whereas in the states said violence would almost always be conducted with firearms.
For some reason few Canadians are willing to shoot other people, stab someone yes, beat someone rather severely yes, but shoot someone no.
Unless of course you live in Toronto or Vancouver.
AustonT wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.
Bull Gak
Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.
When they do the NICS are not all reported mental health issues included in it? I thought they were. Obviously that doesn't stop a person who has never seen a shrink, but it's still there is it not?
Manchu wrote:Mental health background check? For what? Where? Is that a Canadian flag?
Ratbarf wrote:The only state I know of that doesn't require a mental health background check is Georgia.
Bull Gak
Other than the state of Fantasy none of them require a "mental health background check"
And the funny thing about the only background check they do, the NICS, is that its national.
I think maybe he is talking about states requiring that mental health issues be reported? I don't think that they are required to report in Oklahoma other than court ordered mental health actions.
Somewhat, more like all reported mental health issues are flagged when the person goes to buy the gun?
Palindrome wrote: Maybe something will finally be done. Not that I have much hope of that.
Afterall you need your guns to fight off Cuba/the Government/commies.
Really? I need mine to deal with the potentiality of some fethhead trying to do something like this when I'm around.
Honestly, I don't know why someone didn't just tell this guy he was in a gun-free school zone. According to the law, he would've had to take his firearms right back out of it.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion you can legislate or regulate sick crazy feths out of existence, they’ve been around forever, but you can obviously reduce their ability to access efficient death machines.
Hey America, take a long hard fething look at your gun laws, because you seem to have a disproportionate amount of crazy sick feths… and they keep getting their hand on firearms.
Quote for truth!
Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote: [September 18, 2001: The first of several letters laced with weaponized anthrax are delivered through the US postal system infecting 22 people, five of which die. No guns were used.
Shortly therafter, the USPS installed biological detection systems to prevent that from happening again.
Breotan wrote: [September 11, 2001: Terrorists flew three planes into building killing over 3000 people in total. No guns were used.
Among many other things, airplane cockpit doors were hardened to prevent such an attack from recurring.
Breotan wrote: [April 19, 1995: Timothy McVeigh drove a truck full of fertalizer into the basement of the Murrah Federal Building and detonated it killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. No guns were used.
After this happened, large fertilizer purchases began being tracked, and suspicious ones investigated by the FBI.
Breotan wrote: [February 26, 1993: Ramzi Yousef and his fellow conspirators detonated a bomb in the World Trade Center killing six people and injuring more than one thousand. No guns were used.
After this happened, truck barriers were installed at sensitive locations to prevent this from recurring.
We can never stop madmen from engaging in mass murder, but we could at least try to find ways to prevent them from doing the same sort of thing over and over again. All of these major attacks were addressed in some way. We don't even try with gun violence, not in any meaningful way. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but we should stop pretending this isn't actually a problem.
Quote for truth! Why the hell don't you americans do ANYTHING to prevent further shootigs?
whembly wrote:It's not the guns, or the "gun culture" that does this...
Its a disturbed individual did this.
Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!
Quark wrote: So you're going back at least 11 years to match what's happened twice in the past few months.
It's not about making killing go away - that's impossible. But to say we can't reduce it is disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst. Some of these people will find a way to kill, but it won't be as efficient at the job. Others are not so pre-planned, and getting past the deadly heat of the moment is much harder with a gun involved.
How would the incident with the Chiefs player have panned out if he had no gun?
How many people were killed by drunk drivers in the past few months? I say we ban alcohol or limit how many bottles someone can buy in a set time span.
Oh come on! That is the weakest argument I've heard so far, dude. "Oh look something else is also kiling people, so let's just ignore this here" what the.... ,dude?
Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!
No one is arguing against that. In point of fact, it's already illegal to sell a "crazy guy" a gun.
Incidentally, prior to this tragedy, two of the top five deadliest school shootings had taken place in Germany. Now it's one.
Dude! Sure it's the crazy guys fault.... but WHY do you keep arguing against denying crazy guys access to guns? Crazy guy + guns = killing spree. A cray guy without a gun is much less dangerous. So it IS partly the gun culture that does it!
No one is arguing against that. In point of fact, it's already illegal to sell a "crazy guy" a gun.
Incidentally, prior to this tragedy, two of the top five deadliest school shootings had taken place in Germany. Now it's one.
Well, SOME people are agruing against it.
In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)
n0t_u wrote: The stupidity of the average man still surprises you?
Well. Consider how stupid the average person is. Then remember that 50% of the population is even stupider.
...that's bloody depressing.
Here in Colorado we do an NICS and CIB (State level LEA) background check, if there's anything in your past that would flag a "yes" on an ATF Form 4 (for example a misdemeanor domestic violence charge) you will not be cleared to purchase. I do not think there's anything about mental health in there though. I'm not even sure how you could reliably set up and enforce such a system.
Since some people seem slightly confused about how guns work here in the United States here's a brief run down, there's some variation from state to state but this is a good general idea. Magazine Capacity Limits: 5 rounds for hunting, all weapons. (There's some detail stuff in that limit, but it's not important) No other restrictions except in California, New York and a few others. Weapons Restrictions: Title 1 weapons: Rifles, Shotguns and pistols within certain restrictions (length, action type): Free to purchase, some restrictions in certain states (NY, CA, etc) Title 2 weapons (NFA weapons): categorized into Silencers, Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), Any Other Weapon (AOW, a catch all category), Machineguns (Any full auto, commonly referred to as "Class III"), and Destructive Devices (things that go boom like very high cal rifles, think 20mm, Class VI)
Purchase of all Title 2 weapons are regulated and controlled with manufacturers and dealers alike having to seek special licensing to sell the various types and classes of NFA weapons. This is done by applying for a Federal Firearms License in various grades. Certain grades of FFL require you to register as a Special Occupational Taxpayer and are subject to greater scrutiny. There's a variety of other requirements but it's not a walk in the park to pick up your FFL, especially once you get into Special Occupational Taxpayer territory. Hopefully this will help debunk the popular delusion that you can pop into the local gas station and pick up a coke and a revolver with your gas.
For the purchaser of an NFA weapon there's a big pile of paperwork to go through, and a $200 tax stamp to pay on top of the cost of the weapon. For full auto weapons this is usually many thousands of dollars. The average owner of full auto weapons in the United States has an income well into the six figure range. To my knowledge a legally owned full auto weapon has never been involved in a crime since the passing of the '68 Gun Control Act which is where limitations on full auto weapons in civilian hands started to be put into place. Mostly because again as I said, these guys are loaded. Why bother committing crimes? Especially with your $20,000 machine gun?
Background Checks: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system (aka the NICS which has been mentioned previously) it has it's flaws but it is there and people do get denied. Some states have extra background checks and purchase requirements depending.
Concealed Carry: This is very much state dependent but it boils down into the following categories. Constitutional or "Vermont" style carry: Open or Concealed carry of a firearm is permitted to all people who can legally own a firearm over the age of 21. Only three states, Alaska, Arizona and obviously Vermont, have this style of carry law. "Shall Issue" - The majority of states have something along these lines. You jump through some hoops and do some background checks with your local Sheriff and you get your permit in the mail within a month or two. All you have to do is pass the background checks and in most cases show proof of firearms training. Usually a course specifically for concealed carry. Extra Bullgak - Varies by the state but extra hoops to jump through. No carry - I believe the last bastion of this was Illinois and their law was recently struck down as unconstitutional (as we can see from Chicago it didn't do gak for them any way)
Yellow and orange mean that you can legally open carry a handgun or other weapon without a permit. (Rule of three usually applies, by which I mean it has to be clear you're armed when viewing at least three sides of your body) Green means you need a permit, usually the same one you get to conceal carry Red is no open carry Grey is rural carry (So if you're out in the back woods, go for it but if you come to town put up your gun)
There's some other great maps on the site along with solid general information. I'm particularly proud of my home state of Colorado specifically authorizing concealed carry on college campuses.
I think that covers pretty much everything that's come up in the thread...
For some machine gun examples just for funsies in case you guys think I'm talking out my arse about how much a machine gun costs to own in the United States, and why we don't have to worry about their owners. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=321083882
This lovely M249 SAW is going for at least 20k and is NOT civilian legal. Now I couldn't find another M249 that was civilian legal for easy comparison, so this M60 will have to do.
A lovely little H&K MP-5 again around the 20k range, quite the bargain!
So yeah, not particularly worried about bad guys, whether disturbed nut jobs or common street thugs getting a hold of legal automatic weapons in the United States. They couldn't pass the credit check.
On a side note any one who's ever flipped their gak over "silencers" needs to stop watching so many spy movies.
MrMerlin wrote: In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)
Now that the media has properly identified the shooter (hopefully his brother gets a nice lawsuit out of that) the Twitterati have come out and seem to back the rumored statement from Ryan Lanza that his brother (the shooter) Adam had some mental issues.
In other fun news, thanks to Ryan being a fan of the Mass Effect games Jack Thompson and thousands of idiots like him jumped the gun and blamed Mass Effect, a relatively harmless Sci-Fi shooter/RPG series for the tragedy in Connecticut.
Edit: I found this elsewhere, and I'd really like these questions answered myself.
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Repeating firearms have existed for over 150 years – the Colt revolver for example.
Why didn’t those kinds of massacres occur 150… 120.. 100 years ago?
Why didn’t these tragedies occur back when select fire – fully automatic weaponry were easily available?
Why do these tragedies almost always occur in “Gun-Free” zones – where the law-abiding are denied the right of self-defense? (You can ignore this one, that answer should be blatantly obvious)
Don't worry America I'm sure the NRA will put it all into perspective by poitning out that you are more likely to be run down by a car, choke on a peanut or be hit by a falling metorite than be killled at school by a lunatic. Bet that will make every parent sleep better at night!
Why do these tragedies almost always occur in “Gun-Free” zones – where the law-abiding are denied the right of self-defense? (You can ignore this one, that answer should be blatantly obvious)
So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter?
If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.
Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.
plastictrees wrote: So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter?
If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.
Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.
I believe the implication was that one of the presumably adult teachers could have done so.
Disturbed individuals or groups will find a way to satisfy their urges.
Legal firearms in the US are not going to go away. Would restrictions have stopped this massacre? probably. Would this individual have done something else? maybe.
Illegal firearms and weapons will always be available to those with the will to supply and the will to acquire them.
plastictrees wrote: So one of the 5 year olds would have pulled out their side-arm and taken down the shooter? If there are any meaningful answers to the questions you're asking, they probably aren't the one's you are gleefully fishing for.
Also, smug magicians probably aren't your best source of social commentary.
I believe the implication was that one of the presumably adult teachers could have done so.
Or any other adult at any other of the shootings... the vast majority of which occur at gun free zones. The answer to that question is simply that bad guys like targets who can't fight back.
As to the rest, I know it's going to break your smug canadian heart but I'm not fishing for answers and I don't have any for those particular ones. When my grandpa was a kid his school had a marksmanship team and they practiced after school just like any other sport, and brought their rifles from home, no killing sprees. You could order an Anti-Tank rifle in a mail order catalog. Getting a machine gun, which as we just saw cost tens of thousands of dollars now required, instead of a tax stamp and background check along with a special permit, some postage stamps and a couple hundred bucks depending on what one was buying. Still no deranged lunatics running off with a BAR and shooting up a train, bus, diner or high school.
So yes I'd like a meaningful answer if it does in fact exist. What's changed? What's the root of all of this? Or more simply put, why? These rampages are symptoms, what is the disease?
But then I suppose I'm asking internet commentators for social commentary, which has to at least be a step down from magicians
We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?
The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?
filbert wrote: We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?
The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?
What do you propose we do, exactly? Another ban on guns that look scary? Or maybe an outright confiscation of all private firearms? Millions and millions of guns in private ownership in the US; if you've come up with a system to get them all, rather than just get the ones people are willing to turn in, I'd love to hear it. I also somewhat suspect people intending to do violence with their gun might just ignore demands from the government to get rid of it, just as they tend to ignore "Gun Free Zone" laws.
Criminal background checks prior to purchase already exist. It is already illegal for someone judged mentally unstable to purchase a firearm. In fact, this guy violated over twenty state and federal laws before he pulled the trigger the first time; what five or six more would you like to tack on that you think would have stopped him?
filbert wrote: We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here? The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world. How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage? I'm not really seeing the argument that the general availability and culture of guns in the US has no bearing on these incidents. If we were talking one or two in isolation, then maybe but there has been far too many of these to deny correlation, surely?
The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli). How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?
What do you propose we do, exactly? Another ban on guns that look scary? Or maybe an outright confiscation of all private firearms? Millions and millions of guns in private ownership in the US; if you've come up with a system to get them all, rather than just get the ones people are willing to turn in, I'd love to hear it. I also somewhat suspect people intending to do violence with their gun might just ignore demands from the government to get rid of it, just as they tend to ignore "Gun Free Zone" laws.
Criminal background checks prior to purchase already exist. It is already illegal for someone judged mentally unstable to purchase a firearm. In fact, this guy violated over twenty state and federal laws before he pulled the trigger the first time; what five or six more would you like to tack on that you think would have stopped him?
So the solution is apathy because we can't think of a way to tackle it? I don't know the answer but then again, I'm not paid the money to think of it. In all reality, it is too late for the US to adopt any form of law banning gun ownership - the guns are already in circulation and aren't coming back. What is really needed is an entire cultural shift whereby large volumes and sections of American society reject gun ownership and hand in/destroy their weapons and start attaching a cultural stigma to guns in much the same way as smoking has been. Will this happen anytime soon? Nope.
But I would think it would be better to at least try and do something rather than shrug shoulders and wring hands every time something like this happens.
filbert wrote: So the solution is apathy because we can't think of a way to tackle it? I don't know the answer but then again, I'm not paid the money to think of it. In all reality, it is too late for the US to adopt any form of law banning gun ownership - the guns are already in circulation and aren't coming back. What is really needed is an entire cultural shift whereby large volumes and sections of American society reject gun ownership and hand in/destroy their weapons and start attaching a cultural stigma to guns in much the same way as smoking has been. Will this happen anytime soon? Nope.
But I would think it would be better to at least try and do something rather than shrug shoulders and wring hands every time something like this happens.
It's interesting you say that, actually, as gun ownership has actually been going down over the past few decades as gun laws have been 'relaxed'. So, for the record, has violent crime. High-profile school shootings? On the rise.
Edit: I'll say this about apathy and solutions...these guys who want to pull off a massacre before killing themselves? They do it where the easy targets are. They do it where they're not going to wind up having to fight to pull it off. They want the spectacle and the outrage, and they're not going to get it trying to massacre people prepared to defend themselves. They're also not going to be dissuaded from murdering a bunch of people by the social stigma of guns. I'm fairly certain there's a social stigma tied to being a child-killer, too.
You could reduce gun ownership by 50% and still wouldn't be enough - you live in a society that is awash with firearms of one description or another. Whatever needs to be done, needs to be drastic, which is why I suspect there is little political or social appetite to do what it takes to stop these killings.
This is what I posted 5 months ago after the last shooting and I feel it is still just as relevant:
filbert wrote:I think it is going to be distasteful for Americans to confront this topic in the coming months given the events that have occurred, but I think it is something that needs to be discussed and debated. One of the issues is that gun ownership and the belief/support in the right to bear arms is quite a cross party thing; it isn't just die-hard Republicans that believe it, which is one of the reasons that top level politicians have traditionally shied away from addressing gun ownership; they know full well that any discussion of gun ownership or attempt to debate the pros/cons of gun laws will turn off vast swathes of their support. No politician who has any ambition of rising to the top (and they all do) is willing to jeopardise his/her future in that way. So the silence continues and the stone is left unturned. I feel, however, that sometimes you have to analyse and debate distasteful subjects if you ever want to make progress. It may be hurtful and someone may suffer politically for it, but the nettle must be grasped. How many more random and senseless killings need to occur before people sit up and think 'this is not right'. You may well draw parallels with other countries and indeed, there are very few countries which have not suffered the hurt of a shooting but where else on earth does this happen on a regular basis?
The problem is that Pandora's Box is well and truly open. Here in the UK, it was easy enough to pass the laws banning handguns because it didn't really affect many people anyway, apart form gun club members. If by some miracle, Obama passed a law banning gun ownership in the US, what happens to all those millions of weapons in the country? They don't suddenly disappear overnight and no amount of amnesties will get rid of them - the guns are there and always will be, unless the government starts getting incredibly pro-active about taking them off people and how many of us think that will ever happen?
The right to bear arms in so deeply ingrained in US culture such that guns pervade so many aspects of American life; it just isn't easy to separate the two. This isn't a case of giving up guns, this is a case of a massive sea change in American culture and thinking to the extent that average Americans reject their guns. But that would require an enormous social and political change in the mind set. Its harsh to say it, but you wanted your guns and your automatic weapons for all and you got it. But the price of that means that you suffer and will continue to suffer such appalling tragedies until such time as Americans say 'enough is enough'.
filbert wrote: You could reduce gun ownership by 50% and still wouldn't be enough - you live in a society that is awash with firearms of one description or another. Whatever needs to be done, needs to be drastic, which is why I suspect there is little political or social appetite to do what it takes to stop these killings.
I'm still waiting to hear "what it takes" to stop these killings.
This is what I posted 5 months ago after the last shooting and I feel it is still just as relevant:
Yes, if we turned ourselves, culturally, into Norway, we could stop this sort of stuff. Or maybe not.
Also, please, please, please stop the "you can all get automatic weapons over there!" crap.
I'm still waiting to hear "what it takes" to stop these killings.
Like I said, I don't know. I suspect getting rid of your guns and stopping killing one another would be a start, if I'm going to be flippant about it. There is no easy answer or solution to that. But frankly, I don't really care; it's not my societies kids being killed. Fortunately, we only had to deal with this once in the UK and handguns were banned as a result.
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Well the school ones I think are almost certainly Columbine inspired. (Though I think Ecole Polytechnic was the first.) I think it's mostly just copycat killings.
Repeating firearms have existed for over 150 years – the Colt revolver for example.
Why didn’t those kinds of massacres occur 150… 120.. 100 years ago?
Because bombs were the method du jour?
So the solution is apathy because we can't think of a way to tackle it? I don't know the answer but then again, I'm not paid the money to think of it. In all reality, it is too late for the US to adopt any form of law banning gun ownership - the guns are already in circulation and aren't coming back. What is really needed is an entire cultural shift whereby large volumes and sections of American society reject gun ownership and hand in/destroy their weapons and start attaching a cultural stigma to guns in much the same way as smoking has been. Will this happen anytime soon? Nope.
But I would think it would be better to at least try and do something rather than shrug shoulders and wring hands every time something like this happens.
I think you're mistaking apathy with powerlessness. They don't do anything because they can't, and until someone comes up with an idea that would work without disenfranchising everyone else this is the way it's going to stay.
So yes I'd like a meaningful answer if it does in fact exist. What's changed? What's the root of all of this? Or more simply put, why? These rampages are symptoms, what is the disease?
If you want a partial answer I suggest you find yourself a copy of "The Man Who Studies Murder - Part Two: The Anthropology of Murder" it's a documentary from one of the pre-eminent anthropologists on the topic of Murder. The 2nd part goes into why Americans kill each other more than pretty much everyone else in the Western World.
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Well the school ones I think are almost certainly Columbine inspired. (Though I think Ecole Polytechnic was the first.) I think it's mostly just copycat killings.
Yeah, that gels with my old man's theory. He thinks it's media driven. "Hey! If I do that! I can impact billions just like that guy!"
So yes I'd like a meaningful answer if it does in fact exist. What's changed? What's the root of all of this? Or more simply put, why? These rampages are symptoms, what is the disease?
If you want a partial answer I suggest you find yourself a copy of "The Man Who Studies Murder - Part Two: The Anthropology of Murder" it's a documentary from one of the pre-eminent anthropologists on the topic of Murder. The 2nd part goes into why Americans kill each other more than pretty much everyone else in the Western World.
Sounds good, I'll have to go hunt that up. Col. Grossman's psychological texts don't have much to offer on the diseased mind.
MrMerlin wrote: In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)
Still, that's two shootings in a decade.... in the us, there have been three major shootings.... this year (And then, there are those mall-shotings, that guy on a university campus, etc etc....). I'm aware that the US has 4 times as many citizens, but you have much more than 4 times the shootings.
So hmm.... why not make a law that denys lunatics access to guns? I'm fully aware that this won't stop ALL shootings, but even if it only stops two, that could still mean thirty lives. And that would be totally worth it imho.
Besides, @those who whine about their rights as gun owners: Are you a lunatic? No? Then why are you whining, nobody wants to take away your guns!
House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said he had canceled the Republican weekly address for Saturday "so that President Obama can speak for the entire nation at this time of mourning."
I think it's important to point something out. In 1992-2000 there was 240 homicides on school property. 2000-2009 saw 144. So that was a hugely significant drop in them. Despite as was mentioned a "relaxation" of laws.
I'm still waiting to hear "what it takes" to stop these killings.
Like I said, I don't know. I suspect getting rid of your guns and stopping killing one another would be a start, if I'm going to be flippant about it. There is no easy answer or solution to that. But frankly, I don't really care; it's not my societies kids being killed. Fortunately, we only had to deal with this once in the UK and handguns were banned as a result.
Quote for truth. And they do't even have to get rid of all their guns, just make a law that requires someone who wants to buy a gun to go through a checkup.... It's really not that difficult.
MrMerlin wrote: In Germany? When and where? Only one comes to mind, a while back, with 11 death, not 27.... and that guy got his gun by chance, becuase his father had left the gun safe open (which is very unlikeley to cause another killing spree, because father with guns safes are quite rare here compared to the US)
Still, that's two shootings in a decade.... in the us, there have been three major shootings.... this year (And then, there are those mall-shotings, that guy on a university campus, etc etc....). I'm aware that the US has 4 times as many citizens, but you have much more than 4 times the shootings.
So hmm.... why not make a law that denys lunatics access to guns? I'm fully aware that this won't stop ALL shootings, but even if it only stops two, that could still mean thirty lives. And that would be totally worth it imho. Besides, @those who whine about their rights as gun owners: Are you a lunatic? No? Then why are you whining, nobody wants to take away your guns!
Thing is they already have laws like that. What they don't have is a healthcare system where mental illness diagnosis and treatment is readily available to everyone, so a lot of these conditions go undiagnosed and untreated. You can't stop lunatics from buying guns f you don't know who the "lunatics" are, after all.
The issue is more about the symptomatic cropping up of lunatics who go on murdering sprees.
Removing guns from the streets and from peoples homes would not solve the issue.
Look at Norway for example; they have a very low murder rate and strict gun control. However, they is an avid and large base of gun owners who use guns for hunting and recreational use. They rank 11th in privately owned guns-civilian ratio.
Here's a timeline of some of the worst deadly shootings in the U.S. this year:
January 10, 2012: Three teenagers were shot dead in an ambush in Philadelphia, CBS reported at the time. The 30-year-old suspect opened fire on four teens in a car, killing three and injuring one.
February 21, 2012: Jeong Soo Paek burst into a spa his family owned in Norcross, near Atlanta, Ga. He killed four relatives before turning the gun on himself, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported at the time. Police speculated that financial problems motivated the shooting.
February 27, 2012: A 17-year-old student, T.J. Lane, confessed to going into his Chardon, Ohio high school cafeteria and shooting students at random. Three students died and two were hospitalized, The New York Times reported. Lane said he stole the gun from a relative who had obtained it legally.
March 30, 2012: A gunman drove by and opened fire on a crowd of mourners outside a funeral home in Miami, Fla. Two people died and 12 more were injured, the Miami Herald reported. The mourners were gathered for the funeral of 21-year-old Marvin Andre, who also died in a shooting.
April 2, 2012: One L. Goh opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California. He killed seven people and injured at least three more. Goh was a former student at the school and was said to be angry that he was expelled for poor behavior, CNN reported.
April 6, 2012: Five African-American men were gunned down in separate incidents in Tulsa, Oklahoma, ABC reported. Police arrested Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, and said that the murders were motivated by racism. Three men died and two were seriously injured.
May 29, 2012: Ian Stawicki went to a cafe in Seattle's University district, shooting and killing four people, ABC reported at the time. He then fled to a parking lot and shot another woman before killing himself. He wasn't thought to have known his victims.
July 20, 2012: James Holmes, 24, allegedly broke into a midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colo., killing 12 people and injuring roughly 60 more. Later, police revealed that Holmes, a doctoral student in neuroscience, spent $20,000 on ammunition and weapons.
August 5, 2012: Seven people died after gunfire broke out at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The gunman, identified by police as Wade Michael Page, also died in the shooting. He was a white supremacist and the shootings were said to be racially motivated.
August 13, 2012: Three people including a police officer were killed in shootings near the campus of Texas A&M University. The alleged shooter, Thomas Caffell, was said to be obsessed with video games and was having financial problems.
August 24, 2012: Jeffrey Johnson shot a former coworker and injured nine more people before being shot and killed by police. The shooting occurred near New York's Empire State Building during rush hour.
August 28, 2012: Robert Gladden Jr., 15, allegedly brought a gun to Baltimore's Perry Hall High School and shot a fellow student, resulting in a critical injury. The boy's mom said he had been bullied.
August 31, 2012: Ex-Marine Terrell Tyler, 22, opened fire at the Old Bridge, New Jersey supermarket where he worked. He killed two of his coworkers before shooting himself in the head.
September 28, 2012: Andrew Engeldinge walked into his former office, Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, and "carefully selected" coworkers to execute. He fatally shot five people before turning the gun on himself.
October 21, 2012: Radcliffe Haughton, 45, bought a handgun and drove to a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, spa where his estranged wife was working. He killed three people, including his wife, before shooting himself.
November 6, 2012: Lawrence Jones, 42, opened fire at Valley Protein, the Fresno, California meat-processing plant where he worked. He killed two people and himself. Two more were seriously injured.
December 12, 2012: Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, allegedly stole a rifle from a family friend and went into a Clackamas, Oregon shopping mall with "several fully-loaded magazines" of ammunition. He killed two bystanders before shooting himself.
December 14, 2012: A gunman opened fire at a Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. At least 27 people died, including 20 children, according to reports. That story is still developing.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You can though! We can all get automatic weapons... pursuant to state law and having enough money that dropping 20k+ isn't a big deal.
from the link you posted
DID YOU KNOW?? We have several other machine guns being auctioned for only 1 dollar with no reserve.
..think that's probably well within the budget of even a hard up wanna be psycho.
You're an odd country indeed. You'll spend millions and millions of dollars protesting against gay people being able to get married but when it comes to stopping your own children being murdered it's apparently too difficult or too much effort to try and do anything.
djones520 wrote: I think it's important to point something out. In 1992-2000 there was 240 homicides on school property. 2000-2009 saw 144. So that was a hugely significant drop in them. Despite as was mentioned a "relaxation" of laws.
Would that not be a reflection of the common installation of detection equipment and on site policing that seems common (from the outside) at US schools? I.e. the shooting is now done off campus.
Don't get me wrong no being judgemental as I see first hand random checks by police at UK inner city schools (I build new ones) but theyre mostly checking for knives and drugs.
djones520 wrote: I think it's important to point something out. In 1992-2000 there was 240 homicides on school property. 2000-2009 saw 144. So that was a hugely significant drop in them. Despite as was mentioned a "relaxation" of laws.
Would that not be a reflection of the common installation of detection equipment and on site policing that seems common (from the outside) at US schools? I.e. the shooting is now done off campus.
Don't get me wrong no being judgemental as I see first hand random checks by police at UK inner city schools (I build new ones) but theyre mostly checking for knives and drugs.
I don't know. Most of these big shootings take place at rural schools it seems, where they don't have those types of things. I know none of the schools I went to never had any. The school I graduated on did have a police officer always on the grounds, but that was it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You can though! We can all get automatic weapons... pursuant to state law and having enough money that dropping 20k+ isn't a big deal.
from the link you posted
DID YOU KNOW?? We have several other machine guns being auctioned for only 1 dollar with no reserve.
..think that's probably well within the budget of even a hard up wanna be psycho.
You're an odd country indeed. You'll spend millions and millions of dollars protesting against gay people being able to get married but when it comes to stopping your own children being murdered it's apparently too difficult or too much effort to try and do anything.
And? You still need to be compliant with all the laws regarding automatic weapon ownership to buy them, even if they are auctioning for only $1.
reds8n wrote: You're an odd country indeed. You'll spend millions and millions of dollars protesting against gay people being able to get married but when it comes to stopping your own children being murdered it's apparently too difficult or too much effort to try and do anything.
It is difficult because there are 270,000,000 guns running around America amongst a population of 300,000,000+. To be honest, I don't know where to begin solving the problem. Try to restrict guns, there will still be more violence. Try to take away guns, more violence would ensue.
Take care of the mentally ill...well that could be feasible. Increase awareness and sympathy towards those who feel left out of society and get help to those who need it would be a great step in the right direction.
reds8n wrote: You're an odd country indeed. You'll spend millions and millions of dollars protesting against gay people being able to get married but when it comes to stopping your own children being murdered it's apparently too difficult or too much effort to try and do anything.
Again, if you have ideas, I'm sure we'd love to hear them. Most of what's been suggested is already on the books.
And, it begins on Facebook. Looks like the government supplied the weapons and killed our own children in a false flag operation to pass the UN small arms ban to take away our freedoms...
And? You still need to be compliant with all the laws regarding automatic weapon ownership to buy them, even if they are auctioning for only $1.
Well done, now follow the part of the thread where it was stated that automatic weapons were far too expensive for normal people to buy.
Fundamentally there is something wrong when a weapon of war can and does exchange hands for that sort of sum.
Factor in the private citizen to citizen sales loophole and from the -- admittedly limited -- reading I've done with regards to ( sp ?) The Tiarht amendments it seems quite clear that the actual regulation of guns has been udnermined extensively. Possiby even beyond the point of saving.
I understand the complexity of the issue. Say tomorrow scientists come out with a study that proves 100% that guns are bad, shorten your life span, penis length, anger God -- all of them ! -- hurt pandas, deplete the ozone layer and make you fat, a study so compelling that even the NRA stodd up and went "wow, we made a bad call here, LOL, sorry!" so the vasy majority of Americans gave up their guns....
.. there'd still be a lot who wouldn't. Say 1 million of them. What are you to do ? Can't lock up or shoot/wahtever that number of people ?
I guess I'd like to see compulsory licenses and training for gun owners. If people are willing to accept the need for licnese for cars, despite their right to freedom of assembly. Or the fact that you have to pay for a phone or an internet connection despite your right to freedom of speech, then I don't see why a license should be such a big deal ?
Maybe even go for a national recognised one so you can carry cross state lines without having to spend x minutes of your life working out if you're going to get arrestted when you go to visit friends/family 2 states over.
.. although I'd keep the prohibition on planes, but YMMV.
All that said, I appreciate you can't retro actively make this change but maybe it's something that could be looked at for the future.
You'll never remove the threat or danger completely. Nor given the law abiding nature of most gun owners, should they be criminalised either.
reds8n wrote: Well done, now follow the part of the thread where it was stated that automatic weapons were far too expensive for normal people to buy.
Fundamentally there is something wrong when a weapon of war can and does exchange hands for that sort of sum.
I think you're being misled a bit about the ease of the process of picking up a pre-1986 select fire weapon.
Say it's prospectively sold to me for only one dollar. Fair enough. It will not happen, ever, but let's say for the sake of argument it does. I still...
Have to get an ATF Form 4 signed by my local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer, usually the local county sheriff). He's not compelled to sign it.
Obtain approval from the ATF, who do their own criminal background check, perhaps using the submitted photographs and full fingerprints that I'm required to provide and which they keep registered with the gun afterward.
Pay for the tax stamp.
Wait the three to six months for this all to be approved.
The notion that you can walk into your local sporting goods store and walk out with a brand new machine gun for $500 is quite incorrect. It requires an extensive amount of time and money, and you're thoroughly investigated.
Guns are dangerous, of course but its not the main issue, its the easiest issue to jump on. The real issue is lack of proper gun education/understanding and a better check on mental illness. You can never really predict when a person is going to suddenly lose it. It seems like the shooter had some major issues with his parents which eventually led to this tragedy. Unless you have pre-crime minority report style future viewing. Taking away a peoples rights to bear arms is not going to stop it. Because the legal, sane owners of the guns would still have passed all the checks and would still have had the guns for the son to go and take and use against them.
It always seems to be younger men with access to guns or their parents firearms that do this kind of thing, it seems to me that there's some kind of lack in spotting people who are not all their in the morality or mental department. Children should be brought up been taught to respect and fear the gun, not use it in everyday situations they are not toys to be used.
In fact I think educating parents is a good start, teach them to teach their children guns are not just another part of life they are a dangerous tool. Have anyone who owns a gun have to attend safety and real gun ownership classes, with there children if possible. People have been raised with a i can do what i want with a firearm attitude. Ive seen videos of people taking pot shots at bee hives stuck to there houses with guns and just thinking to myself. What are they thinking its a gun a gun! its not a toy that thing can kill!
I think taking away guns is not the real issue i think the real issue is parents not giving there children the right education when raising them about things like morality and the value of life and the things that are dangerous are not to be played with. Raise a generation to respect guns and dangerous and in turn they will do the same for there kids. Guns are too glorified by people now a days, children are left to be raised by call of duty and left to there own devices to learn about guns. Don't take away the danger, learn to respect it. If you lived in an area full of grizzly bears, you don't have all the bears killed or removed if somebody strolls into their area and gets mauled. you teach people how to respect and avoid.
So regarding the "guns are already out there" argument saying we can't do anything, that's just another lazy excuse to stop thinking about the problem. It certainly didn't stop the government from banning Buckyball sales.
You don't change ownership laws directly. Current owners can be grandfathered in. You set up escalating restrictions over years and slowly take guns out of circulation if they can't meet the restrictions. Add in buy back programs to help incentivize gun owners.
This is all not well defined, but that's not my job. Until people stop responding to 26 murdered with "oh well, we can't do anything" then we're in trouble.
Quark wrote: So regarding the "guns are already out there" argument saying we can't do anything, that's just another lazy excuse to stop thinking about the problem. It certainly didn't stop the government from banning Buckyball sales.
You're missing the argument, then, because it's not, "guns are already out there, so we can't do anything." It's, "Guns are already out there, so we can't make guns not be out there." We can certainly do something to prevent atrocities like this from occurring, but we won't, because it would make your average citizen too uncomfortable.
These guys who commit rampage sprees aren't just looking to end their own lives. They're looking for spectacle. They're looking for shock. They're looking to make headlines for a few days. They're not wandering into police stations and starting to unload, nor biker bars, nor bad neighborhoods in Watts, nor NRA meetings. They're not heading to places where they could reasonably expect to get a couple in the ocular box the second they start trying to murder innocents. "Gunman Kills 30 In Area Church" gets you primetime. "Gunman Wounds Two Before Being Shot To Death" is local news.
More news out today, lots of stuff coming out via dispatch tapes I assume.
Looks like as police were responding it was already reported by people on the inside that the shooting had stopped. With no active shots being fired it seems to lead more credence to the decision to stage and wait for adequate resources to arrive.
More stories about teachers trying to move kids to save areas and reading stories to them as the shooter was walking around firing.
Nothing boosts newspaper sales like a bunch of dead children, huh? For feths sake, they should just stop reporting things like this so extensiveley, becuase who knows, some other feth-head might get ideas.... that has happened before....
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Well the school ones I think are almost certainly Columbine inspired. (Though I think Ecole Polytechnic was the first.) I think it's mostly just copycat killings.
Yeah, that gels with my old man's theory. He thinks it's media driven. "Hey! If I do that! I can impact billions just like that guy!"
I think there is something in that, though it is difficult to know why Americans are particularly prone to this kind of behaviour. The easy availability of guns helps, of course, but there are plenty of other "western" nations where it isn't hard to get hold of guns if you want them, and the massacres are much less frequent.
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Well the school ones I think are almost certainly Columbine inspired. (Though I think Ecole Polytechnic was the first.) I think it's mostly just copycat killings.
Yeah, that gels with my old man's theory. He thinks it's media driven. "Hey! If I do that! I can impact billions just like that guy!"
I think there is something in that, though it is difficult to know why Americans are particularly prone to this kind of behaviour. The easy availability of guns helps, of course, but there are plenty of other "western" nations where it isn't hard to get hold of guns if you want them, and the massacres are much less frequent.
Unfortunately I have to agree that we as a country and society have issues with violence. How do we solve this in a meaningful way?
Seaward wrote: Yes, if we turned ourselves, culturally, into Norway, we could stop this sort of stuff. Or maybe not.
I find your argument very narrow minded. It's like you're trying to say "Well, if you can't stop absolutely everybody going on a killing spree, why bother trying at all?"
Just to put things into perspective for you, here's a list of massacres in the USA in reverse chronological order
Sandy Hook, 12.14.2012
Colorado Movie Theatre, 7.20.2012
Tucson supermarket, 8.1.2011
Virginia Tech, 4.16.2007
Capitol Hill, 3.25.2006
Columbine High School, 4.20.1999
Brown's Chicken, 8.1.1993
Luby's, 10.16.1991
San Ysidro McDonald's, 7.18.1984
University of Texas, 8.1.1966
And that's narrowing the criteria down to massacres performed by individuals against Joe Public. Compare to the amount of similar massacres in Norway:
Sturmtruppen wrote: I find your argument very narrow minded. It's like you're trying to say "Well, if you can't stop absolutely everybody going on a killing spree, why bother trying at all?"
I firmly believe you can stop individuals from going on killing sprees.
I do not believe you can stop individuals from going on killing sprees by making laws against going on killing sprees.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Going to have to unfriend some people on Facebook. Tired of reading crap about how the government is able to feed autistic kids psychotropic medications to make him comply and then has black ops agents shoot all the kids and make the autistic kid shoot himself so that the government can disarm us and send the UN troops to America blah blah blah...
Im tired of the "God pray for them" pictures on my feed. I even told a family member how obnoxious it was to do this. she said i need to be a parent to understand and unfriended me.
Really i hate those pics or something, same with the "God bless the troops" pics i see. They make you feel like you did something when you did nothing.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
d-usa wrote: Going to have to unfriend some people on Facebook. Tired of reading crap about how the government is able to feed autistic kids psychotropic medications to make him comply and then has black ops agents shoot all the kids and make the autistic kid shoot himself so that the government can disarm us and send the UN troops to America blah blah blah...
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
They don't, actually.
They do, actually. See, I can claim stuff without backing it up one jot too!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: They do, actually. See, I can claim stuff without backing it up one jot too!
Are they specifically gun-related homicides, or all homicides in general that have nothing whatsoever to do with guns? Are Israel and Switzerland included in the list, or are two of the glaring flaws in the theory left out? Can basic summaries of positions taken using data from well over a decade ago account for the overall drop in violent crime we've seen in the States as gun regulations have loosened?
What do they make of the CDC's numbers that show, if you take out purely urban drug-related shootings, that America's gun death rate is actually rather comparable to the average in Europe? Could violent drug crime have something to do with the prevalence of firearm-related causes of death rather than simply the firearms themselves?
Moreover, does any of that have anything at all to do with the point I was making about spree killing, which the Harvard numbers do not address?
Seaward wrote: Yes, if we turned ourselves, culturally, into Norway, we could stop this sort of stuff. Or maybe not.
I find your argument very narrow minded. It's like you're trying to say "Well, if you can't stop absolutely everybody going on a killing spree, why bother trying at all?"
Just to put things into perspective for you, here's a list of massacres in the USA in reverse chronological order
Sandy Hook, 12.14.2012
Colorado Movie Theatre, 7.20.2012
Tucson supermarket, 8.1.2011
Virginia Tech, 4.16.2007
Capitol Hill, 3.25.2006
Columbine High School, 4.20.1999
Brown's Chicken, 8.1.1993
Luby's, 10.16.1991
San Ysidro McDonald's, 7.18.1984
University of Texas, 8.1.1966
And that's narrowing the criteria down to massacres performed by individuals against Joe Public. Compare to the amount of similar massacres in Norway:
Utoya, 7.22.2011
Do the math.
Just sort of throwing around random thoughts here, but another interesting bit of math - the US has a population of 300 million or so, while Norway has about 5 million. It would make sense that we would have far more crazies doing this kind of thing. I don't think that would hold water when you look at all nations, but still I'd be interested in seeing a some sort of comparison by country of population vs rate of attempted/successful killing sprees vs gun laws/number of guns in the country. Seeing how that plays out with normal gun crime instead of mass shootings would probably work out even worse for the US (EDIT: as Seaward said, the drug crime is probably a large percentage of that.)
I'm tired of folks saying it's the guns or "gun culture" is the blame...
What we have is a failure of personal responsibility which is probably driven by any combination of the following:
-mental issue
-medication issue
-over saturation of violent news in media
-other societal ills
The laws already in effect fail to stop a criminal — who, by the very definition of the word, has no intention of following the law anyway? Moreso that CT has one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, which still didn't stop thisl.
The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what gun control advocate imply by “control.” I'm not willing to disarm law abiding citizens, which would be impractical anyways.
Here's food for thought: What took place in Sandy Hooks take place every month in Chicago, the progressive model for gun control, which until recently had a full ban on handguns.
Here's another: Virginia Tech., Aurora, Colorado., Schools, ... What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. So, how is having more control/restrictions on legal gun ownership going to prevent these atrocities?
Evil people will do evil... no matter what tool is at their disposal.
Then why are there more shootings in your country than in any other?
I haven't heard of a single one in the country I live in (the UAE) or in Singapore, where I used to live. Both countries are gun-free. It seems to work in those places, why can't it work somewhere else? Also bear in mind that on the UAE newspaper's front pages there are many gory images of the dead in Syria nearly every day!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people? That is, to put it bluntly, poppycock. Try committing an act like this with a kitchen knife. It's a lot harder (I would imagine, I haven't actually tried this myself)!
Pro-gun folks have to acknowledge that the "evil people will do what they want, if they have no gun they will murder with something else" argument is bogus.
If it were real then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself, because you could just defend yourself with something else.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Then why are there more shootings in your country than in any other?
I haven't heard of a single one in the country I live in (the UAE) or in Singapore, where I used to live. Both countries are gun-free. It seems to work in those places, why can't it work somewhere else? Also bear in mind that on the UAE newspaper's front pages there are many gory images of the dead in Syria nearly every day!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people? That is, to put it bluntly, poppycock. Try committing an act like this with a kitchen knife. It's a lot harder (I would imagine, I haven't actually tried this myself)!
Quite frankly it doesnt matter, We have the 2nd amendment, Which is only one step away from the first. If we take away one amendment to the bill of rights, we are close to taking them all.
But i dont hear anything from the right except how we should arm all the teachers in schools with assault rifles.
Also, Im keep hearing this from other people. Why do i need to be a parent to find this sad and understand it?
d-usa wrote: Pro-gun folks have to acknowledge that the "evil people will do what they want, if they have no gun they will murder with something else" argument is bogus.
If it were real then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself, because you could just defend yourself with something else.
There's some truth to that... sure. But, you can't bundle that up nicely.
There are numerous cases where legal gun owners defended themselves against attack.
So... I'm kinda confuse where you're coming from... (and I only have a SKB shotgun at home)
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Then why are there more shootings in your country than in any other?
Possibly because we have a lot of people?
Here are the most recent statistics I've been able to find:
We have far and away the highest gun ownership rate in the world, at 88 per 100 people. We do not, however, have the worst firearm murder rate - that'd be Honduras, followed by El Salvador and Jamaica. We're number 28 on the list. As far as firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides goes, Puerto Rico's at the top of that list, followed by Sierra Leone and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
We have, far and away, the most spree killings of this sort. We have bigger, flashier gun homicides, but in terms of per capita gun homicides? Let's not get it twisted. We're not even close.
d-usa wrote: Pro-gun folks have to acknowledge that the "evil people will do what they want, if they have no gun they will murder with something else" argument is bogus.
If it were real then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself, because you could just defend yourself with something else.
There's some truth to that... sure. But, you can't bundle that up nicely.
There are numerous cases where legal gun owners defended themselves against attack.
So... I'm kinda confuse where you're coming from... (and I only have a SKB shotgun at home)
If guns don't make killing people easier, then we wouldn't need guns to make it easier to defend ourselves. That is where I am coming from. It's silly for people to argue that guns have nothing to do with the crime.
d-usa wrote: If guns don't make killing people easier, then we wouldn't need guns to make it easier to defend ourselves. That is where I am coming from. It's silly for people to argue that guns have nothing to do with the crime.
Guns make killing people easier. It's what they were invented for.
My argument's never been based on the notion that they don't. It's based on the notion that they're not going anywhere.
d-usa wrote: Pro-gun folks have to acknowledge that the "evil people will do what they want, if they have no gun they will murder with something else" argument is bogus.
If it were real then you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself, because you could just defend yourself with something else.
There's some truth to that... sure. But, you can't bundle that up nicely.
There are numerous cases where legal gun owners defended themselves against attack.
So... I'm kinda confuse where you're coming from... (and I only have a SKB shotgun at home)
If guns don't make killing people easier, then we wouldn't need guns to make it easier to defend ourselves. That is where I am coming from. It's silly for people to argue that guns have nothing to do with the crime.
OH!
I see... yeah, there's merit to that I'm sure. But you can't discount that if someone is in the mindset of killing someone, they'll find a way to do that. If a gun isn't handy, they may run them over with a car.... who knows what they'll do??? Knowwhatimean?
d-usa wrote: If guns don't make killing people easier, then we wouldn't need guns to make it easier to defend ourselves. That is where I am coming from. It's silly for people to argue that guns have nothing to do with the crime.
Guns make killing people easier. It's what they were invented for.
My argument's never been based on the notion that they don't. It's based on the notion that they're not going anywhere.
I know you haven't argued it, just talking about the general "guns don't kill people, having guns has nothing to do with any I this!!!" talk that is coming from many people.
I also realize that even if I wanted a utopian gun free society we would never be able to reverse course now after 200+ years of letting everybody have them and even pretend that we could get rid of all of them.
Pretending guns are completely safe and that they dont make violent crimes easier is silly. Pretending we could just get rid of guns is equally silly. Both sides need to take a step back from the rhetoric and try to take some real steps to fix the problem.
d-usa wrote: If guns don't make killing people easier, then we wouldn't need guns to make it easier to defend ourselves. That is where I am coming from. It's silly for people to argue that guns have nothing to do with the crime.
Guns make killing people easier. It's what they were invented for.
My argument's never been based on the notion that they don't. It's based on the notion that they're not going anywhere.
I know you haven't argued it, just talking about the general "guns don't kill people, having guns has nothing to do with any I this!!!" talk that is coming from many people.
I also realize that even if I wanted a utopian gun free society we would never be able to reverse course now after 200+ years of letting everybody have them and even pretend that we could get rid of all of them.
Pretending guns are completely safe and that they dont make violent crimes easier is silly. Pretending we could just get rid of guns is equally silly. Both sides need to take a step back from the rhetoric and try to take some real steps to fix the problem.
Yup... agreed... it's an emotional issue and everyone is all over the map.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Then why are there more shootings in your country than in any other?
Possibly because we have a lot of people?
If that's the case, then why doesn't a country like India have many shootings? They are allowed to own guns (and they seem to have similar laws to the USA) yet there aren't as many shootings like this. Sure, the murder rate is probably higher, but there are not as many massacres like the ones that happen in the good ol' US of A.
It's disconcerting to see so much "our solutions will work for you" discourse in this thread. Seaward has brought up some very good points about why the kind of bans other countries impose are not necessarily relevant to this sort of massacre and those points have been rather snootily ignored.
The problem with other countries solutions is that even if they were implemented today we would still have 200 years worth of guns (legal & illegal) in circulation.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If that's the case, then why doesn't a country like India have many shootings? They are allowed to own guns (and they seem to have similar laws to the USA) yet there aren't as many shootings like this. Sure, the murder rate is probably higher, but there are not as many massacres like the ones that happen in the good ol' US of A.
I don't know. I don't know enough about Indian crime to even hazard a guess. Do they have a fairly massive drug market that's largely controlled in their urbanized areas by gangs standing in opposition to one another with easy access to firearms?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Then why are there more shootings in your country than in any other?
Possibly because we have a lot of people?
If that's the case, then why doesn't a country like India have many shootings? They are allowed to own guns (and they seem to have similar laws to the USA) yet there aren't as many shootings like this. Sure, the murder rate is probably higher, but there are not as many massacres like the ones that happen in the good ol' US of A.
I feel mass shootings are done for the spectacle and the media coverage they generate. I would suspect that India does not have the same type of media saturation or media driven culture that the US does. Maybe a "news pundit per capita" study needs to be done
Also, shootings on the other side of the world probably do not have as big of an impact, taking away the snowballing effect of copycat shootings that we are seeing here.
whembly wrote: the isreali do arm their teachers, however... but, not too keen on that idea).
.
I think you'll find that this is something of.. let's be generous... an internet myth.
TEL AVIV (JTA) -- First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.
But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.
However, once those soldiers finish their service two or three years later, they are subject to civilian gun control regulations that are much stricter than American laws.
In fact, it’s pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in last week’s massacre in Aurora, Colo. James E. Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 in the Aurora movie theater, legally bought the firearms he used, according to reports, including a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol and a 12-gauge shotgun. Leading up to the shooting, Holmes had bought thousands of bullets online.
In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.
Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.
Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.
In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.
Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.
Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted.
In 2008, 143 people in Israel died from firearms, according to the website gunpolicy.org.
“They don’t recruit everyone,” said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. “If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged.”
Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks.
He said that gun massacres don’t occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners.
“It’s not guns that kill, it’s people that kill,” Nedivi said. “If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don’t get a chance to get a gun.”
Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue.
“We think the society is over-armed,” said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. “There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings.”
Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law.
“The private police companies offer an illusion of security,” Ben-Natan said. “They’re not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don’t bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot.”
For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.
I assume it's perhaps people hearing about West Bank settlers and thinking applies to the whole country ?
It is a bit odd when you go there.
I recall seeing a woman, baby in a front sling ( papoose is it ?) full military camo gear, pistol holstered at side doing her weekly shopping. Oddest thing we saw was the groups of soldiers hitch-hiking, again in full gear and with rifles. Tour guide/driver told us they get short leave passes and are popular with drivers as if you're carrying soldiers you can't get done for speeding as they can claim " emergency" and the police let you on your way.
I guess it's also a pretty effective deterent against car-jacking and so on as well.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If that's the case, then why doesn't a country like India have many shootings? They are allowed to own guns (and they seem to have similar laws to the USA) yet there aren't as many shootings like this. Sure, the murder rate is probably higher, but there are not as many massacres like the ones that happen in the good ol' US of A.
I don't know. I don't know enough about Indian crime to even hazard a guess. Do they have a fairly massive drug market that's largely controlled in their urbanized areas by gangs standing in opposition to one another with easy access to firearms?
I'm not sure about drug gangs, but there is a lot of organised crime (and unorganised crime) in the country. And knowing how corrupt sections of the Indian government are, it shouldn't be too hard to get a gun.
I'm not going to comment any more about this topic - I get drawn into arguments like this too easily and I generally spurt much that I eventually wish I didn't. So I'm going to back out slowly.
reds8n wrote: Well done, now follow the part of the thread where it was stated that automatic weapons were far too expensive for normal people to buy.
Fundamentally there is something wrong when a weapon of war can and does exchange hands for that sort of sum.
I think you're being misled a bit about the ease of the process of picking up a pre-1986 select fire weapon.
Say it's prospectively sold to me for only one dollar. Fair enough. It will not happen, ever, but let's say for the sake of argument it does. I still...
Have to get an ATF Form 4 signed by my local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer, usually the local county sheriff). He's not compelled to sign it.
Obtain approval from the ATF, who do their own criminal background check, perhaps using the submitted photographs and full fingerprints that I'm required to provide and which they keep registered with the gun afterward.
Pay for the tax stamp.
Wait the three to six months for this all to be approved.
The notion that you can walk into your local sporting goods store and walk out with a brand new machine gun for $500 is quite incorrect. It requires an extensive amount of time and money, and you're thoroughly investigated.
Also the listings that RedS8N was talking about aren't legal weapons for civilian transfer. So....... bit of a red herring actually.
Nothing boosts newspaper sales like a bunch of dead children, huh? For feths sake, they should just stop reporting things like this so extensiveley, becuase who knows, some other feth-head might get ideas.... that has happened before....
That's my old man's theory. That psycho X gets the idea to go out and do evil. Psycho Y's chilling on the couch at home and sees what Psycho X did and the mass coverage makes the gears in Y's head turn "Hey! I could do that!"
d-usa wrote: Going to have to unfriend some people on Facebook. Tired of reading crap about how the government is able to feed autistic kids psychotropic medications to make him comply and then has black ops agents shoot all the kids and make the autistic kid shoot himself so that the government can disarm us and send the UN troops to America blah blah blah...
BARTLESVILLE — An 18-year-old Bartlesville High School student was arrested early Friday after police uncovered an alleged school-shooting massacre plot.
Sammie Eaglebear Chavez attempted to recruit students in the school cafeteria on Wednesday to help him carry out a massive school shooting and bombing plot, police allege in a court affidavit.
Prosecutors charged Chavez later Friday with planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence. District Judge Curtis DeLapp set Chavez’s bail at $1 million.
The charge says Chavez intended to cause serious bodily harm or death to other students.
“Sammie tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school auditorium where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” Bartlesville Police Lt. Kevin Ickleberry wrote in the affidavit, which was filed in Washington County District Court.
“He also told them that if the students assisting him did not do what they were supposed to do, he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.”
Police were notified of the plot Thursday afternoon by school administrators who had been told of the alleged plan by another student, the affidavit states. Chavez had told the students he would place bombs by the auditorium doors and that when police arrived, he would detonate them.
As police conducted their investigation, officers learned that Chavez had told a teacher last week that he’d bought a Colt .45 gun and had spent the weekend shooting it, the affidavit says.
Chavez, who had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the high school facilities, had been using a school computer to search for information on a Marlin Model 99M — a .22-caliber rifle on a machine gun platform, the affidavit states.
Students had witnessed Chavez researching the Columbine High School massacre and reading online letters that were written in the aftermath of the April 1999 shooting, which killed 12 students and a teacher in Littleton, Colo, as well as the two shooters. A student also had witnessed Chavez looking at a website on how to build pipe bombs, the affidavit states.
Bartlesville Public Schools issued two alerts to parents on Friday, stating that administrators were informed of a rumor in which a current student “was planning to potentially harm students and staff at Bartlesville High School. School administrators took the information extremely seriously and informed the Bartlesville Police Department of the alleged plan.”
Chavez was absent from classes on Thursday as school officials and police were investigating the rumor. Superintendent Gary Quinn applauded the work by school administrators in assuring that students “were never in harm’s way.”
“I am proud of our administrative personnel who took what started out as an unsubstantiated rumor and, through their diligent work and exhaustive investigation, were able to determine there could be a future threat,” Quinn said.
“We appreciate the excellent relationship we have with our local law enforcement and their swift response to the information we provided them. We will always put the safety of the students of the Bartlesville Public School District first and foremost.”
Police arrested Chavez at his home in the 100 block of Southwest Adeline Avenue about 4:50 a.m. Friday on a warrant signed by Special Judge John Gerkin, Bartlesville Police Capt. Jay Hastings said.
Chavez, who was arraigned Friday afternoon in court, is in the Washington County Detention Center. As a condition of his bond, DeLapp ordered Chavez to stay away from Bartlesville schools and from weapons.
In a statement released Friday, Quinn said the school district is working in cooperation with the Bartlesville Police Department and “will make every effort to fully investigate and take every precaution to make the Bartlesville Public School District a safe environment for everyone.”
The administration is urging students and others to inform school administrators or police of any rumors of any potentially harmful act.
.. bloody hell. Still score one for the authorities here at least.
whembly wrote: the isreali do arm their teachers, however... but, not too keen on that idea).
.
I think you'll find that this is something of.. let's be generous... an internet myth.
TEL AVIV (JTA) -- First-time visitors to Israel might be taken aback to see groups of armed teenagers walking through a city plaza on a weeknight, or surprised to walk into a public bathroom and see an M-16 laying across the sinks as a soldier washes his face.
But guns are ubiquitous in Israel, where most 18-year-olds are drafted into the army after high school.
However, once those soldiers finish their service two or three years later, they are subject to civilian gun control regulations that are much stricter than American laws.
In fact, it’s pretty much impossible for civilians who live in Israel to acquire an arsenal of weaponry of the sort used by the alleged shooter in last week’s massacre in Aurora, Colo. James E. Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and wounding 58 in the Aurora movie theater, legally bought the firearms he used, according to reports, including a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic pistol and a 12-gauge shotgun. Leading up to the shooting, Holmes had bought thousands of bullets online.
In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.
Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.
Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.
In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.
Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.
Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted.
In 2008, 143 people in Israel died from firearms, according to the website gunpolicy.org.
“They don’t recruit everyone,” said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. “If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged.”
Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks.
He said that gun massacres don’t occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners.
“It’s not guns that kill, it’s people that kill,” Nedivi said. “If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don’t get a chance to get a gun.”
Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue.
“We think the society is over-armed,” said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. “There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings.”
Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law.
“The private police companies offer an illusion of security,” Ben-Natan said. “They’re not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don’t bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot.”
For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.
I assume it's perhaps people hearing about West Bank settlers and thinking applies to the whole country ?
It is a bit odd when you go there.
I recall seeing a woman, baby in a front sling ( papoose is it ?) full military camo gear, pistol holstered at side doing her weekly shopping. Oddest thing we saw was the groups of soldiers hitch-hiking, again in full gear and with rifles. Tour guide/driver told us they get short leave passes and are popular with drivers as if you're carrying soldiers you can't get done for speeding as they can claim " emergency" and the police let you on your way.
I guess it's also a pretty effective deterent against car-jacking and so on as well.
The photos from Israel I always find interesting are female soldiers hitting the beach in the latest swimwear... with their M-4s.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Quite frankly it doesnt matter, We have the 2nd amendment, Which is only one step away from the first. If we take away one amendment to the bill of rights, we are close to taking them all.
The Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago in the context of a country that had just declared independence from the British Empire. I seriously don't get why Americans lose sleep over the idea of it being changed.
Because, Thats the way we are. From the second amendment being changed, how long is it until they decide that we no longer have a right to a trial by jury? Or that we have to let soldiers occupy our homes.
BARTLESVILLE — An 18-year-old Bartlesville High School student was arrested early Friday after police uncovered an alleged school-shooting massacre plot.
Sammie Eaglebear Chavez attempted to recruit students in the school cafeteria on Wednesday to help him carry out a massive school shooting and bombing plot, police allege in a court affidavit.
Prosecutors charged Chavez later Friday with planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence. District Judge Curtis DeLapp set Chavez’s bail at $1 million.
The charge says Chavez intended to cause serious bodily harm or death to other students.
“Sammie tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school auditorium where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” Bartlesville Police Lt. Kevin Ickleberry wrote in the affidavit, which was filed in Washington County District Court.
“He also told them that if the students assisting him did not do what they were supposed to do, he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.”
Police were notified of the plot Thursday afternoon by school administrators who had been told of the alleged plan by another student, the affidavit states. Chavez had told the students he would place bombs by the auditorium doors and that when police arrived, he would detonate them.
As police conducted their investigation, officers learned that Chavez had told a teacher last week that he’d bought a Colt .45 gun and had spent the weekend shooting it, the affidavit says.
Chavez, who had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the high school facilities, had been using a school computer to search for information on a Marlin Model 99M — a .22-caliber rifle on a machine gun platform, the affidavit states.
Students had witnessed Chavez researching the Columbine High School massacre and reading online letters that were written in the aftermath of the April 1999 shooting, which killed 12 students and a teacher in Littleton, Colo, as well as the two shooters. A student also had witnessed Chavez looking at a website on how to build pipe bombs, the affidavit states.
Bartlesville Public Schools issued two alerts to parents on Friday, stating that administrators were informed of a rumor in which a current student “was planning to potentially harm students and staff at Bartlesville High School. School administrators took the information extremely seriously and informed the Bartlesville Police Department of the alleged plan.”
Chavez was absent from classes on Thursday as school officials and police were investigating the rumor. Superintendent Gary Quinn applauded the work by school administrators in assuring that students “were never in harm’s way.”
“I am proud of our administrative personnel who took what started out as an unsubstantiated rumor and, through their diligent work and exhaustive investigation, were able to determine there could be a future threat,” Quinn said.
“We appreciate the excellent relationship we have with our local law enforcement and their swift response to the information we provided them. We will always put the safety of the students of the Bartlesville Public School District first and foremost.”
Police arrested Chavez at his home in the 100 block of Southwest Adeline Avenue about 4:50 a.m. Friday on a warrant signed by Special Judge John Gerkin, Bartlesville Police Capt. Jay Hastings said.
Chavez, who was arraigned Friday afternoon in court, is in the Washington County Detention Center. As a condition of his bond, DeLapp ordered Chavez to stay away from Bartlesville schools and from weapons.
In a statement released Friday, Quinn said the school district is working in cooperation with the Bartlesville Police Department and “will make every effort to fully investigate and take every precaution to make the Bartlesville Public School District a safe environment for everyone.”
The administration is urging students and others to inform school administrators or police of any rumors of any potentially harmful act.
.. bloody hell. Still score one for the authorities here at least.
Yeah props to the teachers for catching that one, and to the kids who reported it. Someone smack that judge for letting the nutcase out on bond though.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also the listings that RedS8N was talking about aren't legal weapons for civilian transfer. So....... bit of a red herring actually.
Yeah, I didn't bother to check them, but something didn't' sound quite right, considering a POS MAC-11 will go for $4K+.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is that the gun laws - or, more specifically, the hoops you have to jump through to get a firearm - can be pretty arcane to the non-initiated. Before I decided I wanted to get a gun in civilian life, I honestly had no idea of the process.
Combine that with the fact that the media is often wildly incorrect about everything ranging from legislation to terminology - I've seen several reports from serious journalism outlets claiming that this donkeycave used "assault weapons" and editorials from more that say this shows why we need to ban automatic weapons - and you end up with a public that, partly through no fault of its own, doesn't know up from down on the issue.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Because, Thats the way we are. From the second amendment being changed, how long is it until they decide that we no longer have a right to a trial by jury? Or that we have to let soldiers occupy our homes.
You realize that we already invalidates one of the ammendments, and passed quite a few that changes sections of the actual constitution?
Sturmtruppen wrote: The Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago in the context of a country that had just declared independence from the British Empire. I seriously don't get why Americans lose sleep over the idea of it being changed.
Because I don't believe it would change anything at this point. Those hundreds of millions of guns are not going anywhere, and I'd personally like the opportunity to do more than hide or try to time a crazy-ass rush right if some madman ever walks into my office or tries any number of other nefarious things with a gun of his own.
I know more than a few sincere, dedicated people who, had they been at that school yesterday, may well have died themselves, but would have done so on a pile of their own spent brass, and focused every ounce of their will onto ensuring this Lanza kid did the exact same thing, only a lot sooner.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also the listings that RedS8N was talking about aren't legal weapons for civilian transfer. So....... bit of a red herring actually.
Yeah, I didn't bother to check them, but something didn't' sound quite right, considering a POS MAC-11 will go for $4K+.
Honestly, I think part of the problem is that the gun laws - or, more specifically, the hoops you have to jump through to get a firearm - can be pretty arcane to the non-initiated. Before I decided I wanted to get a gun in civilian life, I honestly had no idea of the process.
Combine that with the fact that the media is often wildly incorrect about everything ranging from legislation to terminology - I've seen several reports from serious journalism outlets claiming that this donkeycave used "assault weapons" and editorials from more that say this shows why we need to ban automatic weapons - and you end up with a public that, partly through no fault of its own, doesn't know up from down on the issue.
Well I tried to explain the basics a couple pages ago, but it seems everyone ignored it.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people? That is, to put it bluntly, poppycock. Try committing an act like this with a kitchen knife. It's a lot harder (I would imagine, I haven't actually tried this myself)!
You do realize that there was a mass stabbing at a Chinese elementary school right before you posted this, right?
This thread really makes me sad the more I skim it and think about the kids and teachers that were murdered.
I had a best night ever with my 6 year old the night before this happened by doing a daddy- daughter date and going out to see the Christmas lights, buy some presents, and going to eat at a restaurant.
She was twirling in the snow under the lights, running from window to window, and listening to an outdoor concert with me.
I have a date to take out my 8 year old this coming week and she is extremely excited for the same adventure her little sister had.
Why someone would willingly hurt that kind of innocence and snuff it out I have no idea.
I think I'll leave this thread now.... we're basically just repeating the same arguments over and over again, like we've done in so many threads before, without ever really agreeing on anything. I think the US needs strickter gun laws, others think they don't, and we're mostly wasting our time, repeating ourselves again and again.
Seaward wrote: I'd posit that evil does in fact exist in the world, but that's an opinion that's already been smacked down in this thread.
Actually, "evil" was defined by a number of WWII allied, (mainly US army), psychologists as 'a lack of empanthy towards other individuals'.
It was a common trait seen in many of the worst Nazi war criminals, expecially those who carried out the worst atrocities, and it's a trait that is very common amongst many mass murderers & spree killers who have turned out to be sociopaths, psychopaths or violent sadists.
A number of these criminals were turned into 'lost causes' either through childhood trauma such as horrific abuse or vindictive bullying. But some are simply born bad for reasons doctors & psychologists still can't understand.
I'd wager eating my hat that eventually, criminal psychologists will find that this shooter had at last one or two traits of the above.
Identifying the symptoms however is incredibly difficult, not to mention that the mental health community in general is too lax and liberal on its adamant belief that you can't label a child as a sociopath.
Well I don't think we'll ever find out if this particular shooter had those symptoms... not for sure. His brains being scattered against a wall has that effect.
On a side note from the Oregon shooting it turns out that a Concealed Carry Permit holder confronted the gunman and lead to his prompt suicide.
filbert wrote:We had this same discussion, with the same pro and anti gun arguments made just a few months ago with the last mass shooting. At what point do all you pro-gun people stop and think that something might be wrong here?
Never. Much like the number of people killed by cars each year doesn't keep us from driving. It's the cost of having guns and in your utopian future without them I suppose they'll have to outlaw knives, kabab sticks, and bats when they get used in a crime.
The scale and frequency of these mass shootings occur in the USA on a scale found nowhere else in the world.
If you'd stuck to frequency you'd have been fine. As far as scale is concerned it's found in plenty of places in the world. Lets pick a name out the hat: Norway. I'm sure that was a shock.
How many will it take before the US as a nation has a frank and open debate about gun control, ownership and usage?
There's been a continuous debate and the current system is a result. As I am unable to drive a tank with a working gun and procure sarin gas it appears the system is not without restriction.
The pro-gun lobby will of course continue to point to Israel and Switzerland as examples of countries that have high gun ownership but low firearm deaths while glibly passing over the myriad differences (and to be honest, I suspect your average Israeli probably has other targets in mind rather than his/her fellow Israeli).
That would be interesting considering Israel has about the same proliferation of privately owned firearms as the UK, and I can't remember the last time anyone considered that number "high".
How many young Americans have to die to firearms before you admit that something needs to be done?
The number you are looking for here is an 8 sideways. Bad things happen and people die. It's the human condition. Our society has decided that gun ownership is a right, yours more or less went the other way. And yet somehow America isn't a dystopian wasteland. In fact you and I live probably at the same level of comfort and safety daily.
Ratbarf wrote:
Why have most of these tragedies only occurred recently? (Columbine was really the start)
Well the school ones I think are almost certainly Columbine inspired. (Though I think Ecole Polytechnic was the first.) I think it's mostly just copycat killings.
Erfurt, Coburg, Rotz, Emsdetten,Winnenden. I'm not a math wizard but that's more than 2.
WarOne wrote:
August 24, 2012: Jeffrey Johnson shot a former coworker and injured nine more people before being shot and killed by police. The shooting occurred near New York's Empire State Building during rush hour.
I read this today on the AP, and a couple jumped out at me. This was the best one; I guess it's hard to justify it as a mass shooting if you have to write, "August 24, 2012: Jeffrey Johnson shot a former coworker. Causing the NYPD to fire wildly into a crowd injured nine more people near New York's Empire State Building during rush hour."
reds8n wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: You can though! We can all get automatic weapons... pursuant to state law and having enough money that dropping 20k+ isn't a big deal.
from the link you posted
DID YOU KNOW?? We have several other machine guns being auctioned for only 1 dollar with no reserve.
..think that's probably well within the budget of even a hard up wanna be psycho.
I don't suppose you actually looked at the going rates of those $1 NR auctions?
