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.

**Seaward**

djones520 wrote:
In all fairness Seaward, not all mental illness is brought on by specific events in a persons life. Even depression can be purely brought about by a chemical imbalance instead of a chain of gakky events.

That's true, but it doesn't negate the fact that not all sufferers of mental illness decide to shoot up a school, and the majority of the ones who apparently do are young white males. Young white males who appear to have a pattern of being social outcasts.

**Kilkrazy**

Are school shootings separate phenomena to workplace shootings or public shootings (malls, cinemas)?

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Are school shootings separate phenomena to workplace shootings or public shootings (malls, cinemas)?

Most likely not, but I'm not a criminal psychologist who studies this stuff, so can't say.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Are school shootings separate phenomena to workplace shootings or public shootings (malls, cinemas)?

I don't believe so, though I'm certainly less familiar with them, largely because they tend to make less of a cultural impact save in extreme cases. School shootings are a whole other level of horrific.

**Kilkrazy**

Yes, when you look back it is a shocking toll.

Here is some interesting material on mass shootings in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, when you look back it is a shocking toll.

Here is some interesting material on mass shootings in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

What's an assault weapon?

**Da Boss**

Every time this comes up we have the same argument. DUSA and Seaward are right I think, when they say that solutions from other countries are unlikely to work in the United States. But there's definitely something cultural going on to make these spree killings so much more prevalent than in other countries.

Like I said though, Germany had quite a few (though not nearly as many) and it's got strict gun control. I think it is definitely a cultural rather than gun control issue.

That's not to say I'm not in favour of gun control of course. I think any society where you have to be armed to be safe is not someplace I'd call civilised. And as a teacher, I'd be really uncomfortable if I had to accept carrying a firearm and getting trained in how to use one for my job. It's not why I became a teacher.

**djones520**

Da Boss wrote:
Every time this comes up we have the same argument. DUSA and Seaward are right I think, when they say that solutions from other countries are unlikely to work in the United States. But there's definitely something cultural going on to make these spree killings so much more prevalent than in other countries.

Like I said though, Germany had quite a few (though not nearly as many) and it's got strict gun control. I think it is definitely a cultural rather than gun control issue.

That's not to say I'm not in favour of gun control of course. I think any society where you have to be armed to be safe is not someplace I'd call civilised. And as a teacher, I'd be really uncomfortable if I had to accept carrying a firearm and getting trained in how to use one for my job. It's not why I became a teacher.

In most places in America you don't have to be armed to be safe. Some places you do. Statistically speaking these events are extremely rare. There is 98,000 public schools in this country. As far as I am aware there was 2 mass shootings in public schools this year.

So the odds of this happening are extremely small. To put it this way you are more then twice as likely to intentionally kill yourself (suicide) then you are to be intentionally killed by someone else, by a fire arm. You are more likely to die in a plane crash then being involved in a mass school shooting. The odds of dying in a school massacre are almost the same as being involved in a state sanctioned execution.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, when you look back it is a shocking toll.

Here is some interesting material on mass shootings in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

What's an assault weapon?

Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, when you look back it is a shocking toll.

Here is some interesting material on mass shootings in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

What's an assault weapon?

Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.

Self loading rifles? I've gotta get me one of those.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.

Remember the disdain you felt for those idiots during the election who were talking about "legitimate rape" and things of its ilk? People who clearly felt strongly about something, yet hadn't bothered to do even the basics in terms of learning about the subject they were trying to legislate?

That's pretty much how I feel about "assault weapon" folks like the guys who wrote that article.

**Da Boss**

djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.

**djones520**

Da Boss wrote:
djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.

You don't need it to be always safe, but there are some situations where sometimes it may be necessary to be safe. But taking them away from the law abiding will make everyone less safe. Washington DC and Chicago are clear examples of that. Chicago effectively bans them, and twice as many people were killed in that city during the period of the Iraq war, then actual soldiers in Iraq.

**Da Boss**

I can see that, alright. When I first joined this forum I had a different viewpoint on american gun control, but the arguments here actually changed my mind. One of the reason I like OT.

**djones520**

I'll never argue that guns are the cure all. But they will allow us good folks to level the playing field with the bad folk who don't give a damn about any laws that may be passed with the best intentions.

**Ratbarf**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, when you look back it is a shocking toll.

Here is some interesting material on mass shootings in the USA.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

What's an assault weapon?

Isn't an assault weapon just a weapon that can select between semi-auto and fully auto-matic fire? You then get sub categories do you not? For instance an assault pistol is different from an assault rifle which is different from a sub machine gun with select fire.

Plus, fully automatic fire is only really more deadly than semi-auto when one is just "spray and pray"ing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
djones: Yeah, I know the US isn't that violent. My point was that some of the rhetoric about needing a gun to stay safe makes it seem much more violent than it really is.

You don't need it to be always safe, but there are some situations where sometimes it may be necessary to be safe. But taking them away from the law abiding will make everyone less safe. Washington DC and Chicago are clear examples of that. Chicago effectively bans them, and twice as many people were killed in that city during the period of the Iraq war, then actual soldiers in Iraq.

Wouldn't a better comparison be the fire arm related homicide rate for the times before and after the ban? I mean the fact that they killed more people in chicago than soldiers in Iraq is nothing more than coincidence. They're completely unrelated statements.

**Seaward**

Ratbarf wrote:

Isn't an assault weapon just a weapon that can select between semi-auto and fully auto-matic fire? You then get sub categories do you not? For instance an assault pistol is different from an assault rifle which is different from a sub machine gun with select fire.

That, of course, is what most people think. I suspect it's what "assault weapon ban" legislators wanted people to think.

Here's Wikipedia's definition, which I happen to agree with:

Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range," sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.

The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger. In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.

An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.

**rockerbikie**

Blame bullying... I think bullying led to that kid developing that mental illness in the first place.

**Seaward**

rockerbikie wrote:
Blame bullying... I think bullying led to that kid developing that mental illness in the first place.

Bullying's been around for a while now. If it's truly at fault, then I'll choose instead to blame our "participation trophy" culture that doesn't equip kids to handle adversity of any sort, including that of getting picked on.

**rockerbikie**

Seaward wrote:
rockerbikie wrote:
Blame bullying... I think bullying led to that kid developing that mental illness in the first place.

Bullying's been around for a while now. If it's truly at fault, then I'll choose instead to blame our "participation trophy" culture that doesn't equip kids to handle adversity of any sort, including that of getting picked on.

Yeah, that is true. Though, we do have to intervene and stop the ammount of bullying that is happening at Public and Private Schools today.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

Judging by the article, self-loading rifles and SMGs.

Remember the disdain you felt for those idiots during the election who were talking about "legitimate rape" and things of its ilk? People who clearly felt strongly about something, yet hadn't bothered to do even the basics in terms of learning about the subject they were trying to legislate?

That's pretty much how I feel about "assault weapon" folks like the guys who wrote that article.

It would be good if you would give a useful definition of assault weapons.

Would bolt-action rifles be included, for example?

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be good if you would give a useful definition of assault weapons.

Would bolt-action rifles be included, for example?

There is no useful definition of "assault weapons." It's a term made up by politicians. It's the "legitimate rape" of the firearms lexicon.

**Kilkrazy**

That's not the way it is used in the article.

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not the way it is used in the article.

No, it isn't. I'm not sure what your point is. After all, I can point to no less than twenty articles right now describing this Lanza donkey-cave's AR-15 as an assault rifle, despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements to fall under that definition.

The media doesn't know drek about firearms. Nor do politicians.

Fun fact: if I add a telescoping stock to my AR-15, it's an "assault weapon" under the criteria used by the original law. If I put a standard stock back on it, it's not.

**Ratbarf**

An assault weapon's a gun that people think looks scary or resembles a military weapon. That's it.

Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from? Which is a Select fire weapon capable of either fully automatic or semi automatic firing using a rifle cartridge?

**Seaward**

Ratbarf wrote:
Then where does the term, Assault Rifle come from? Which is a Select fire weapon capable of either fully automatic or semi automatic firing using a rifle cartridge?

Good, now go up to the search box on that site and type 'assault weapon'. See what you get.

In order to use that line of logic, by the way, you'll have to ignore the fact that the "assault weapons" ban did not actually ban legal assault rifles. I'm sorry that both terms have "assault" in them but mean different things. It trips a lot of people up.

**Ratbarf**

I didn't get that off of a site. I'm not a gun nut, but I am not exactly the uninitiated when it comes to fire arms.

I had always kind of figured that Assault weapon was just a catch all for machineguns and assault rifles, and possibly automatic pistols with augmented magazines.

**Seaward**

Ratbarf wrote:
I didn't get that off of a site. I'm not a gun nut, but I am not exactly the uninitiated when it comes to fire arms.

I had always kind of figured that Assault weapon was just a catch all for machineguns and assault rifles, and possibly automatic pistols with augmented magazines.

Nope. It exclusively referred to semiautomatic weapons in the law in which the term was officially introduced. It's a misleading and ultimately meaningless term that's a perfect example of fear politics. Calling something a semiautomatic rifle doesn't excite quite the same level of panicked reaction as calling the exact same firearm an assault weapon.

**Ratbarf**

Well that's what it should mean.

**Experiment 626**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
Being autistic is pretty damn hard.

So hard it obliges you to shoot up an elementary school, apparently.

I guess Klebold and Harris showed us that being outcast nerds who had trouble getting laid is on a similar plane of difficulty.

Klebold was later determined to be a sociopath through his writings he kept and his love of extreme violence. Harris was simply a weak-willed follower who'd been tormented by bullies and was taken in by Klebold.

The 'mental illness' card is an excuse most of the time.
I have a friend who has a 'high functioning' form of autisum, and while he can get moody, (espeically if some jerk is being a huge bully), he's never shown signs or symptoms of wanting to go out and mass murder innocent people.

This kid wasn't some hyper abused violent sadist like the recent Firebug who was sentanced the other day in Toronto, who genuinely wanted to maim and kill people with his fire-setting. Nor was he some violent paranoid schizophrenic like Vince Lee who beheaded and cannabalised a fellow Greyhound bus passenger.

This kid had an issue most likely, but simply wasn't strong enough to deal with it. Did he have other issues? Perhaps very likely. Does it excuse the fact he planned & organised the act and make him not criminally culpable? Hell no!