Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**djones520**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The Obama presidency certainly has been great for the firearms industry.

I assume it's because focusing on gun laws would be political suicide in the USA.

Sure, but the THREAT of new gun laws is what's great for the industry.

It is. Ammo sales went through the roof the first time he was elected. Even I bought a couple hundred rounds for my rifle. Kinda glad I did though. 4 years later I still haven't had to buy anymore. Hopefully I get orders soon. Cook County (Chicago) just tried to pass a huge ammunition tax, and when they do things, the rest of the state tends to fall in line.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I bulk buy most of my ammo so no changes for me.

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Flashman wrote:

Trust us, it does work.

Numbers: United States Population: 314,960,029
Violent Crimes: 1,203,564

United Kingdom Population: 62,698, 362
Violent Crimes: 2,090,000

Really?

Tell me which categories of assault are included in the US Violent Crime stats compared to the UKs then come back and say that's a valid comparison.

**djones520**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I bulk buy most of my ammo so no changes for me.

I don't get to shoot that often. Places to fire rifles in Illinois are hard to come buy. If I want to site my scope in, I generally have to wait until I get back to Michigan. So most of the ammo I've bought over the last 4 years has been for my shotguns. I bought a box of 100 shells of #7 shot, and a few boxes of 20 of various sizes for ducks and geese.

Dependant on where i'm stationed at next, I'll probably start bulk buying more often.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The UCR Program collects offense information for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_faqs

NIBR also measures these (not including because it's a long list).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/nibrs_faqs/#offenseinfo

Then I guess the FBI compiles there statistics from these two lists.

I'm having a hard time finding specifics for Britain, but what I can find doesn't seem to show much differant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:

How often are people going to keep bringing up erroneous stats? For about the millionth time, violent crime in the UK is recorded differently. For example, affray is considered a violent crime - this is why stats are misleading...

And how is it not? It is the same as Assault over here.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

And how is it not? It is the same as Assault over here.

No it isn't. At common law in the US assault is to place a person under threat of violence. Affray is to cause another to fear for his legitimate safety as a result of the threat or commission of violence towards another, separate person.

So, if you threaten to hit someone you would be assaulting that person, and potentially committing affray against any witnesses.

**Kilkrazy**

That would be called making threats, or threatening behaviour, in the UK. Assault requires either a physical or mental attack.

**Hordini**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That would be called making threats, or threatening behaviour, in the UK. Assault requires either a physical or mental attack.

What's the difference between making threats and a mental attack? What qualifies as a mental attack?

**Kilkrazy**

For example, persistent verbal bullying, or stalking behaviour.

There is no physical interchange, but the victim can suffer mental distress.

The principle was established in law a few years ago, that mental "wounds" are a form of assault.

**djones520**

And such things make up a full million more counts? That seems a bit excessive.

**Kilkrazy**

The British definition of violent crime includes offences which are not included in the US definition.

The US definition of aggravated assault only includes attacks or threatened attacks with weapons.

In the UK, any personal contact can be an assault. For example, you could be charged with assault for spitting on a person, or pinching their bottom. I am not saying that the courts are filled with bottom pinchers, but the kind of punch-up that happens outside pubs at closing time, is recorded in the violent crime statistics in the UK, but not in the USA.

You may find that 1 million such crimes is excessive. We do not know the rate of similar crimes in the USA. It might be 10 million more, so it is pointless to discuss unless we can find the data.

Now we know that the weapon crime rate in the USA is over 800,000 a year, we will be able to compare the weapon crime rate in the UK, if we can find the data for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.soca.gov.uk/threats/firearms

For example, this page says about 11,000 crimes involving firearms were recorded in the UK in 2010/2011.

If we can find the nunber of knife crimes too, we will have most of the "aggravated assault" figures.

**BaronIveagh**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The principle was established in law a few years ago, that mental "wounds" are a form of assault.

Assault in the 4th degree, IIRC.

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK, any personal contact can be an assault. For example, you could be charged with assault for spitting on a person, or pinching their bottom. I am not saying that the courts are filled with bottom pinchers, but the kind of punch-up that happens outside pubs at closing time, is recorded in the violent crime statistics in the UK, but not in the USA.

Actually, those can be assault (what constitutes assault varies from state to state) in the US, but it's common assault rather than aggravated assault. Mind you, it's still assault. So is swearing at someone while invading their personal space in some states.

New York is the only state where assault requires an actual injury. (One can only imagine the US statistics if the swearing/personal space thing were practiced there)

**A Town Called Malus**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK, any personal contact can be an assault. For example, you could be charged with assault for spitting on a person, or pinching their bottom. I am not saying that the courts are filled with bottom pinchers, but the kind of punch-up that happens outside pubs at closing time, is recorded in the violent crime statistics in the UK, but not in the USA.

Actually, those can be assault (what constitutes assault varies from state to state) in the US, but it's common assault rather than aggravated assault. Mind you, it's still assault. So is swearing at someone while invading their personal space in some states.

New York is the only state where assault requires an actual injury. (One can only imagine the US statistics if the swearing/personal space thing were practiced there)

But the fact is that the figure you posted use the official US violent crime stats which only includes Aggravated Assault. The UK figure includes every type of assault.

**Kilkrazy**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The principle was established in law a few years ago, that mental "wounds" are a form of assault.

Assault in the 4th degree, IIRC.

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK, any personal contact can be an assault. For example, you could be charged with assault for spitting on a person, or pinching their bottom. I am not saying that the courts are filled with bottom pinchers, but the kind of punch-up that happens outside pubs at closing time, is recorded in the violent crime statistics in the UK, but not in the USA.

Actually, those can be assault (what constitutes assault varies from state to state) in the US, but it's common assault rather than aggravated assault. Mind you, it's still assault. So is swearing at someone while invading their personal space in some states.

New York is the only state where assault requires an actual injury. (One can only imagine the US statistics if the swearing/personal space thing were practiced there)

I am talking about the definitions used by the FBI and DoJ for national crime statistical analysis.

The point is that "assault" without a weapon is not included in the US national violent crime data, but it is in the UK.

**KalashnikovMarine**

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/183600161.html

Dr. Gratia-Hupp weighs in on the CT shooting. Again Dr. Gratia-Hupp is a former Texas law maker, concealed carry advocate and survivor of the Luby's Diner Massacre.

On another note I've been seeing a lot of tweets, comments, even heard a couple irl debates where the anti-gun side's argument ended up at: "You violence loving gun owners should all die!" I really gotta wonder why the loony left (and these guys are so nuts they should be a parody... not an actual person) immediately gets so deranged and violent when it comes to a cause. None of the gun owners I know are like that... I have to say I'm glad these dems choose not to own weapons, I'd be extremely nervous around them if they had firearms. Maybe they realize they're horrible scum and are projecting what they'd do if they had guns on everyone else? I know it's not all of the opposing group, the folks here on Dakka have been reasonable and a couple here and there else where... but I've been seeing this a lot.

**Kilkrazy**

Shall we get back to the data?

**BaronIveagh**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

But the fact is that the figure you posted use the official US violent crime stats which only includes Aggravated Assault. The UK figure includes every type of assault.

Ok, then rather than look at just England, we'll spread our gaze across Europe.

This comes from the Harvard Law Review in a study of the effectiveness of banning guns in preventing murders. The numbers are all from the closest data to 2003.

Nation Handgun Policy Murder Rate per 100k Year
A. Belarus banned 10.40 late 1990s

[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]

Poland allowed 1.98 2003
Russia banned 20.54 2002

B. Luxembourg banned 9.01 2002

[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]

Belgium allowed 1.70 late 1990s
France allowed 1.65 2003
Germany allowed 0.93 2003

C. Russia banned 20.54 2002

[Neighboring countries with gun law and murder rate data available]

Finland allowed 1.98 2004
Norway allowed 0.81 2001

Notes: This table covers all the European nations for which the information
given is available. As in Table 1, the homicide rate data comes
from an annually published report, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE
STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT

According to several sources, despite the highest gun ownership in Western Europe Norway also has the lowest murder rate.

**Kilkrazy**

What is the hypothesis?

**BaronIveagh**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the hypothesis?

my understanding was it was to test if there was an actual correlation between gun bans, specifically handguns (as Europe's most common firearm ban), and a reduction in violent crime, specifically murder. The reason murder was selected is that it was both the most consistent between countries and considered the most accurately reported statistic.

Their conclusion was there was no actual correlation between murder and gun bans. Access to firearms does not appear to be a driving factor in total murders per capita. Statistically, they observed that many of the nations with more liberal firearm ownership laws tended to lower murder rates in that approx period, but this was not hard and fast.

**djones520**

I'm finding it impossible to find numbers that give a clear break down of same measurements. But we can look at it this way. Based on reported numbers Britain has 8 times the violent crime per citizen then the US. Granted, they measure more categories differantly, that cannot be argued. To the level of 8 times more thought?

If you are trying to make the claim that America has a more violent culture, because of our gun laws, then Britain would have to have significantly lower rates of violent crime. And given such a large disparity, I highly doubt that you will find what your looking for if you were just to compare the same statistics.

**Seaward**

I've heard it said before, though I have no idea if it's true, that the UK doesn't include unsolved crimes involving firearms in their firearm crime rate statistics, thus under-reporting firearm crimes since the handgun ban. Can any of our British comrades confirm or deny?

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
I've heard it said before, though I have no idea if it's true, that the UK doesn't include unsolved crimes involving firearms in their firearm crime rate statistics, thus under-reporting firearm crimes since the handgun ban. Can any of our British comrades confirm or deny?

I checked the Home Office site, and unless unsolved crimes are not recorded, then what you've heard is false. Page 55.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary

**Kilkrazy**

Crime in the UK is measured in a number of ways, making it difficult to assemble complete and reliable data without a large amount of research that I am not prepared to do for the sake of a discussion on the internet.

First, crime is recorded separately in England and Wales to Northern Ireland, and to Scotland. The population of England and Wales is about 56 million out of a total population of about 63 million. We can expect a higher rate of firearms offences in NI thanks to the various paramilitary terrorist organisation.

Second, the police only record as crimes, incidents which satisfy them that a substantive crime has occurred. This has been criticised particularly in the case of rapes, which are accused of being under-reported by the police.

Third, the British Crime Survey is an annual survey of a large sample on their personal experience of crime. It is used by the Home Office to compare and correct the data from the police reports.

Lastly, violent crime is also surveyed by the National Health Service Accident and Emergency reporting. In other words, when casualties present to hospitals, the reason is recorded. This allows violent crime stats to be cross-checked between three data sources.

**BaronIveagh**

Kilkrazy wrote:
We can expect a higher rate of firearms offences in NI thanks to the various paramilitary terrorist organisation.

Not entirely certain that would be the case, due to the differences in gun law between England and Wales/N Ireland. I can say that, while firearms were used in a higher percentage of murders per 100k in Ireland proper than the UK, their overall murder rate was with in 0.01% of each other.

Again, I don't see how the presence or absence of guns is making a big difference in this.

**djones520**

A great article regarding gun ownership and murder rates.

http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

Yeah yeah, it references Britains violent crime rate, but when you examine all of the other points in there it's pretty telling.

**Seaward**

Honestly, I'm not sure why it's all that relevant a discussion. Only the lunatic fringe is talking about a complete ban, and the "assault weapon" ban being proposed has already had a chance to show us it doesn't do much, if anything, to affect the firearm crime rate in the States, because next to nobody uses "assault weapons" when they commit a crime.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

djones520 wrote:
A great article regarding gun ownership and murder rates.

http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm

Yeah yeah, it references Britains violent crime rate, but when you examine all of the other points in there it's pretty telling.

I doubt that few would disagree with the view that higher gun ownership doesn't always result in more murders. Canada and Norway are living proof of this.

I've never bought into the view that all gun owners are right wing fanatics, and I've always said that people should be able to defend homes/property/business against armed raiders.

I also said that I wouldn't get involved in American gun discussion (something I know nothing about) because I hated it when they were lecturing us on the NHS!

To sum up 40 pages of posts: Not all American gun owners are bad, second amendment mentions bare arms, and Merry Christmas

One last final point. Some people say that the second amendment gives Americans the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, but how does that square with Article III, section 3 of the constitution, that deals with treason if you wage war against it? It being the American government. Do the two not cancel each other out?

**Easy E**

NRA Statement: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html

(CNN) -- The National Rifle Association responded Friday to a chorus of voices calling for gun control in the wake of last week's horrific mass shooting in Connecticut by doubling down on its own position: more guns, not fewer, provide true security.

After one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history -- 20 children and seven adults killed, not including the gunman -- polls show that a slight majority of Americans favor restrictions on guns. Conservative Democrats and even some Republicans who have supported gun rights have said they are open to discussing gun control.

But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.

"You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.

Lapierre's response 'irresponsible' But what if the gunman, Adam Lanza, had been confronted by a trained security guard?

"Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?" LaPierre asked.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said.

LaPierre's position sets the stage for a contentious battle between the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, and the Obama administration, which has promised quick action on "real reforms" to gun laws.

This week, President Barack Obama tapped Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force to start formulating those reforms and, with the White House's support, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said she will introduce legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Gun owners fear new legislation could tread on their rights

The NRA had remained silent in the wake of last week's school massacre as the debate on gun control was shaped by these moves in Washington. That changed Friday when it drew a line in the sand, providing its alternative vision for protecting American children through armed security personnel at all schools.

"Why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect the president of our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in our schools?" LaPierre asked.

"We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work -- and by that I mean armed security," he said, reading from a prepared statement.

The NRA executive appeared aware that he was staking a bold position in front of a divided public that recent polls suggest is leaning toward tightening gun laws. In case he wasn't, protesters interrupted his address twice, shouting anti-NRA slogans and bearing banners in front of his podium, including one that said "NRA killing our kids."

LaPierre spoke exactly one week after the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Across the nation, church bells rang in remembrance of the victims. The NRA was among those groups that observed a moment of silence at 9:30 a.m., the same time as last week's massacre.

Residents in Newtown and across the country paused for a moment of silence in memory of the victims. Many websites went dark momentarily to mark the moment.

Funerals for five of the victims -- school psychologist Mary Sherlach, behavioral therapist Rachel Marie D'Avino and students Grace Audrey McDonnell, Olivia Rose Engel and Dylan Christopher Jack Hockley -- also took place Friday.

A slight majority of Americans favor major restrictions on guns: 52%, up 5 points from a survey taken in August after the July shooting inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people died, according to a CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday.

More than 195,000 people have signed an online White House petition supporting new gun control legislation.

Yet the NRA has support among many Americans who believe that taking steps to limit access to guns is not the answer.

One CNN reader summed up the pro-gun argument this way: "We ... put undercover, plain clothed air marshals on our planes to protect us when we fly. I fully support the same in our schools to protect my children. Every school should have one," Ali wrote.

"A cop in every school is a much better solution than a holster on every teacher's belt. But it doesn't go far enough. This is an attempt to contain the problem to schools and avoid the broader discussion," another CNN commenter wrote.

Parents defend right to keep guns in the home

Others pointed to the apparent contradiction among conservatives who want to reduce public spending but also support the NRA's idea to arm schools. Who will pay for the thousands of armed guards? several CNN readers asked.

Many suggested taxes on guns that could fund such a program.

Why own a military-style rifle

The NRA envisions a "National School Shield Emergency Response Program" where qualified police, military, security personnel and others organize to protect schools.

Schools remain a target for criminal gunmen because they are not protected by armed security the way other important institutions are, LaPierre said.

Policies banning guns at schools create a place that "insane killers" consider "the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk," he said.

Former congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead the school security project.

Armed personnel will be part of the security model but not the only component, Hutchinson said.

"School safety is a complex issue with no simple, single solution," he said. "But I believe trained, qualified, armed security is one key component among many that can provide the first line of deterrence as well as the last line of defense."

NRA power and money go a long way in states

The NRA, with its roughly 4.3 million members, is the standard bearer for protecting the Second Amendment. It is also the source of hefty campaign donations.

During the 2012 election cycle, the NRA donated $719,596 to candidates. Republicans received $634,146 of that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' analysis of federal campaign data.

Some $85,450 went to Democrats, many of them in states that are considered more conservative when it comes to gun control laws.

The NRA's point man on its school security study, Hutchinson, received $7,000 from the organization for his 2000 congressional campaign, and $7,450 in 1998.

Looks like some of the people in this thread helped put this statement together. Congrats on calling it!

On a trolling note, I think we should simply abolish public school and replace it with mandatory 12 years of Boot Camp. That would give our students the skills they need to protect not only themselves and the nation, but also Democracy!

**AustonT**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I am talking about the definitions used by the FBI and DoJ for national crime statistical analysis.

The point is that "assault" without a weapon is not included in the US national violent crime data, but it is in the UK.

So let's remove the cause of error. The UNODC defines assault as a bodily attack resulting in serious bodily injury but excludes sexual assault and assaults that led to death.

Kilkrazy wrote:Shall we get back to the data?

I think we should.
It's unfortunate this data only goes to 2008 but it does indicate a pattern of violence that has not radically changed; otherwise it would have been trumpeted from the roof tops on your island home.
The UK less NI produced about 500,000 assaults per year from 2003-2008
The US produced about 900,000 in the same period. (obviously I'm simplifying, the link is for pendant pleasure).
Oh noes one number is higher than the other!
The UK's population is somewhere between 1/5 and 1/6 that of the US and yet her assault rate is more like half. That indicates a much greater prevalence of violence, namely assault. Somewhere to the tune of about 270:100,000 in the US and about 800:100,000 in the UK less the clover patch.

**Kilkrazy**

You are missing the crucial point -- which I have already mentioned twice before and which has been pointed out by other users -- that the USA assault data only includes attacks with weapons, while the UK data includes attacks without weapons and also sex crimes, which are not included in the US data.

Until we are able to find data for US assaults without weapons ("simple assault", in FBI/DoJ terminology) it is worthless to compare the two sets of data.

In plain language, the comparison is bollocks, not the dog's bollocks.

**BaronIveagh**

A lot of schools already have armed guards. AFAIK they seem to work.