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.

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think we can agree that guns are not much used in crimes such as false accounting, so I would like to look at violent crime which is their natural milieu.

Okay.

Both the CDC and the National Research Council said the Assault Weapons Ban didn't do anything measurable to firearm crime rates. The Department of Justice has said that renewing the ban would make quite possibly no noticeable difference on firearm crime rates, because weapons covered under it are used in such a minute percentage of crimes to begin with.

It doesn't work.

Would you then favour control of pistols, which are used in a large proportion of gun crimes?

**Seaward**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you then favour control of pistols, which are used in a large proportion of gun crimes?

No. They're used in a huge proportion of self-defense shootings.

**reds8n**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
reds8n wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nor can most CHLs.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/

That particular study has been disproven for poor methodology and researcher bias so many times as to be laughable. .

Much like the author whose book you've repeatedly recommended, despite admiting that his actual statistical analysis is utter tripe and/or faked.
But you like his version of events so you choose to accept it.

Right.

**CDK**

I think everyone needs to get off the idea of gun laws. For or against.

I think the main problem the US has is an Attitude problem. I'm mean, what makes a person want to shoot another in the first place!? Yes we could make it harder to kill someone by making it harder to get a gun. But some will just use a knife or something else instead if they really want to murder someone. A few weeks ago someone killed two people with a Bow and Arrow! As has been said there are plenty of countries with guns, some more or less than the US. But why do we have the gun violence?! I really don't mind laws making it at least harder to get an AR-15 or something, but there's MORE of an underlying problem in the US. I know especially guys here don't believe it, but what if it is the video games, movies, TV, and stuff? I know everyone here is going to say "I've played video games for years and I don't want to kill someone!" Yes maybe YOU don't but there are some Crazy people out there who might. There are those few crazy people who think it's okay to solve their problems with violence of any sort. Our media is filled with tons of violence. But even so there's other countries with even MORE violent media! If you've ever seen some anime you would probably know what I mean. So what the hell is it that makes us different? Is it because we are more of diverse group of people? Compared many other countries we are made up of so many more cultures and religions. You can't say it's mostly white people because even they are split up.

My first post on this thread was about where is mental health care? Not only is there a huge stigma about getting it but then on top of that we can't afford it as well. We have to pay for it like we would for any other medical need. There is some free help but hardly anyone knows it exists. Even if they knew it they knew it existed they then don't know how to use it or where to get it.

Again throw aside the gun laws argument. There is a bigger picture to this. Is it the lack of health care? Is it the poor economy? Is it religious/cultural/racial intolerance? Is it violent media?

**AustonT**

reds8n wrote:

Much like the author whose book you've repeatedly recommended, despite admiting that his actual statistical analysis is utter tripe and/or faked.
But you like his version of events so you choose to accept it.

Right.

Was there an actual study in the link all I saw was the ABC segment.

**Seaward**

AustonT wrote:
Was there an actual study in the link all I saw was the ABC segment.

There was not. Just proof that if some armed guys who know who you are burst into a room shooting with intent to kill you, they probably will.

**reds8n**

AustonT wrote:
reds8n wrote:

Much like the author whose book you've repeatedly recommended, despite admiting that his actual statistical analysis is utter tripe and/or faked.
But you like his version of events so you choose to accept it.

Right.

Was there an actual study in the link all I saw was the ABC segment.

Yes : http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

There was not. Just proof that if some armed guys who know who you are burst into a room shooting with intent to kill you, they probably will

swing and a miss !

**Seaward**

reds8n wrote:
Yes : http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

Wait a minute. We can't use the Daily Mail's numbers, but the VPC's are perfectly trustworthy?

**Monster Rain**

While I agree with the sentiment that gun owners should be more proficient and responsible, and that guns don't magically protect you simply by owning them, that is by no means a reputable study.

It's more of an elaborate essay.

**Seaward**

By the way: remember when I said they'd be coming for Black Ops 2, too?

64% support for armed teachers edges out a fresh crack at the assault weapons ban. My faith in America is restored.

**reds8n**

Where have you been stopped from using the Daily Mail's numbers ?

I don't know of any such restriction in place ? I assume you're mistaken, again, as opposed to just making things up.

One is welcome to use whatever numbers you like, if you think that they'll stand up to scrutiny.

The Daily Mail of course didn't link to the study in question and lifted certain headline grabbing figures out of it -- which is fair enough, they're a newspaper after all. Then the article shot down its own credibility -- a common feat in the tabloid end of the media because it's a numbers game after all -- by saying how dubious the figures were owing to the varying methodologies used in collating such figures and the categorisation of the offences by the nations involved.

If one has issues with the figures or methodology used in another study or story -- such as one assumes you have with the one above -- then you are of course more than welcome to point out such flaws and explain why they are dubious.

I wonder myself how much might have changed in the decade or so since this was published.

But then again much of the data being presented -- it's a sloppy title but I'll refer to it as being from the "pro gun" POV ( although please note I do accept that this is using something of a broad brush and should not be taken as being all defining or categorising) was from a long time before that.

**Seaward**

reds8n wrote:
Where have you been stopped from using the Daily Mail's numbers ?

I don't of any such restriction in place ? I assume you're mistaken, again, as opposed to just making things up.

One is welcome to use whatever numbers you like, if you think that they'll stand up to scrutiny.

The Daily Mail of course didn't link to the study in question and lifted certain headline grabbing figures out of it -- which is fair enough, they're a newspaper after all. Then the article shot down its own credability -- a common feat in the tabloid end of the media because it's a numbers game after all -- by saying how dubious the figures were owing to the varying methodologies used in collating such figures and the categorisation of the offences by the nations involved.

If one has issues with the figures or methodology used in another study or story -- such as one assumes you have with the one above -- then you are of course more than welcome to point out such flaws and expalin why they are dubious.

So an anti-handgun lobby that writes an iffy essay by pulling quotes out of context from a variety of disparate sources, most of which were making arguments in favor of guns, really needs detailed analysis?

**reds8n**

Define "need" ?

It cites references for its arguments, which is far better than most of the "evidence" presented thus far. -- Notable aside to to K.Mike here

You are of course free to disagree with the conclusions it draws, one assumes many Americans do.

But you haven't presented an actual counter argument aginst any of them, all you've done thus far is claim the article didn't exist/wasn't linked to, then made spurious claims to do with another source, and then claimed that this one is unfair as it's biased.

**whembly**

Well... it has started in Missouri...

Don't think our gov'nor will sign it though.

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/missouri-bill-would-allow-teachers-carry-guns-schools/

JEFFERSON CITY -- Any public school teacher or administrator with a concealed weapons permit would be allowed to carry guns in Missouri schools under a bill filed Tuesday in the state House.

Republican Rep. Mike Kelley of Lamar is sponsoring the legislation and has 24 co-sponsors, including House Speaker Tim Jones and House Majority Leader John Diehl. It comes less than a week after a gunman shot and killed 26 people – including 20 children – at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Missouri law currently prohibits anyone except law enforcement from bringing a weapon into schools. But following the Connecticut school shooting, Republicans around the nation have argued that similar tragedies could be avoided in the future by arming school personnel.

"I think there is a correlation between these horrible acts of violence and the gun-free zones that have come about by the law," Republican Rep. Stanley Cox, a Sedalia attorney who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently told the Associated Press.

Similar arguments have been made by Republican members of Congress and numerous GOP state officials, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

The idea has been decried by gun-control advocates.

“Think about what that’s saying. It’s saying the only answer to violence is more violence. The only answer to guns is more guns," Dan Gross, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, told Politico. He went on to call the idea of arming teachers, "insane."

So far, the only other gun-related bill to be filed in Missouri would require school districts and charter schools to provide training and education about firearms safety to teachers. It also requires all first graders to participate in a gun safety program organized by the National Rifle Association.

Earlier this year, the Missouri House garnered national attention when it overwhelmingly approved legislation banning discrimination against Missourians who lawfully carry a concealed weapon. The bill never came up for a vote in the Missouri Senate.

In recent years, the Republican-controlled legislature has also lowered the age requirement for a concealed carry permit, expanded the state's self-defense law, and allowed lawmakers and staff to carry firearms in the state Capitol.

**reds8n**

..given all the issues with the teacher's Unions are you sure arming them is wise ?

**whembly**

reds8n wrote:
..given all the issues with the teacher's Unions are you sure arming them is wise ?

o.O

What issues?

And besides, the teachers that I know... they're already firearm owners.

But, this is Missouri we're talking about.

**Seaward**

reds8n wrote:
Define "need" ?

It cites references for its arguments, which is far better than most of the "evidence" presented thus far. -- Notable aside to to K.Mike here

You are of course free to disagree with the conclusions it draws, one assumes many Americans do.

But you haven't presented an actual counter argument aginst any of them, all you've done thus far is claim the article didn't exist/wasn't linked to, then made spurious claims to do with another source, and then claimed that this one is unfair as it's biased.

The counter-argument is that they're taken out of context; if you believe Massad Ayoob is saying that CCW doesn't work, I don't know to tell you. He was and remains one of the biggest proponents of the practice in the world.

Also, yes, Kalashnikov's numbers blow the disingenously-cited "study" out of the water.

**Frazzled**

Pun intended?

**AustonT**

reds8n wrote:
AustonT wrote:
reds8n wrote:

Much like the author whose book you've repeatedly recommended, despite admiting that his actual statistical analysis is utter tripe and/or faked.
But you like his version of events so you choose to accept it.

Right.

Was there an actual study in the link all I saw was the ABC segment.

Yes : http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

This isnt a study. It's an article or an essay and should be presented as such.

**reds8n**

This is the full text of the November 2001 Violence Policy Center study Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are A Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense.

What is a study then ?

The counter-argument is that they're taken out of context; if you believe Massad Ayoob is saying that CCW doesn't work, I don't know to tell you. He was and remains one of the biggest proponents of the practice in the world.

I took it as saying that he was wrong with the conclusions he's drawn.

Also, yes, Kalashnikov's numbers blow the disingenously-cited "study" out of the water.

In your opinion.

This study however is dated after most of the statistics quoted/used by him.

In addition some of the claims he made are based around/upon the work of Mr. Lott, whose methodology and willingness to lie and distort the figures to suit his facts we've already covered.

This : http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2000/01/01/duncan1/

also makes me ponder on the accuracy of the figures quoted.

**Seaward**

reds8n wrote:
What is a study then ?

An actual study, or something that someone wants to call a study? Was Lanza's weapon an assault rifle just because a lot of anti-gun groups say it was? No, it wasn't. People use words wrong to lend credibility to the incredible frequently. It's a favorite tactic of Fox News, in fact.

I took it as saying that he was wrong with the conclusions he's drawn.

And having read far, far, far more of his work, I take it as an anti-gun policy shop pulling a quote out of context in order to make it seem like the author's saying something he's not. Another favorite tactic of the Fox News crowd.

In your opinion.

And mathematics.

**BaronIveagh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Wrong on all accounts, that country was called France (plus a Prussian drill sergeant!)

Yeah, except they weren't time travelers to go back and help Burgoyne surrender at Saratoga. Granted, France was willing to sell us all the guns we wanted before then, but...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
reds8n wrote:
What is a study then ?

An actual study, or something that someone wants to call a study? Was Lanza's weapon an assault rifle just because a lot of anti-gun groups say it was? No, it wasn't. People use words wrong to lend credibility to the incredible frequently. It's a favorite tactic of Fox News, in fact.

I'm still not sure how it has anything to do with the situation. My understanding of it was the AR was left in the car and had zero impact on events.

**Seaward**

BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm still not sure how it has anything to do with the situation. My understanding of it was the AR was left in the car and had zero impact on events.

Nah, he apparently did the murdering with the AR-15, and then offed himself with one of the handguns. The long gun left in the car was a Saiga shotgun, if memory serves.

**BaronIveagh**

Seaward wrote:

Nah, he apparently did the murdering with the AR-15, and then offed himself with one of the handguns. The long gun left in the car was a Saiga shotgun, if memory serves.

Ok, just read what the coroner posted and it seems he used the rifle and both pistols, but left a shotgun in the car. And a .22 rifle at home that he did his mother in with [4 in the head]. Early reports I had seen claimed he left the AR in the car with the shotgun and just used the pistols.

Oh, this is classy... I love the press...

http://gawker.com/nadine-shubailat

This is just... insane.

**KalashnikovMarine**

reds8n wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
reds8n wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

You have to shoot to qualify as a CHL as well. Most cops couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

Nor can most CHLs.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/

That particular study has been disproven for poor methodology and researcher bias so many times as to be laughable. .

Much like the author whose book you've repeatedly recommended, despite admiting that his actual statistical analysis is utter tripe and/or faked.
But you like his version of events so you choose to accept it.

Right.

I mentioned Lott's book once and fully admit the issues with his work. I recommend Doctor Kleck's work which has issues of it's own as Sebs and I have discussed extensively.

As to the study you showed just watch the video. The "active shooter" clearly knows who the defender is in every class room and from what I understand (I have seen this "study" a few times before) all but one of the defenders had even range experience much less a CCW course. You'll also notice they stacked the deck against him (the one individual in the study with range experience) with a second active shooter. That said I actually agree with the only valid conclusion you can draw from this study/video footage. Just carrying a gun is not enough. Nor was it ever. To paraphrase Colonel Jeff Cooper simply having a weapon does not make you armed. Having a gun won't make you safe instantly. Having a gun, training with it regularly, practicing situational awareness and a combat mindset will make you safer.

I can do all sorts of experiments with a bias to make things say what I want to. Doesn't meant they're reliable or even true results.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Seaward wrote:

Oh, this is classy... I love the press...

http://gawker.com/nadine-shubailat

This is just... insane.

hahah, who hasn't wanted to say that to a reporter?

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
Texas leads the way in allowing teachers to carry guns.

Meanwhile, at the moment, I give the Assault Weapons Ban a 50/50 shot at passing when it gets introduced in January. I predict it will have the exact same impact it did the first time around - zero reduction in firearm crimes - but hey, it'll make a lot of clueless people feel like they "did something." Meanwhile, an awful lot of gun owners will just switch from fifteen-round 9mm handguns to ten-round .45s.

I agree that the Assault Weapons ban did nothing useful. But I think your summary that a return to that terrible bill is the only possible end result is a bit of a dodge, to be honest. Perhaps a more meaningful method would be to attempt to focus solutions towards more substantial efforts, like universal background checks and improved mental health services.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
By the way: remember when I said they'd be coming for Black Ops 2, too?

And you count a vague survey question that talks simply about a reduction, and not of an actual ban as proof of that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
What is a study then ?

It's a thing that Seaward will ask for, and then when you provide it he'll stop responding.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

CDK wrote:
Canada has far more guns per capita than the US but they don't have NEAR the gun violence we do.

Yes. It's not the guns that are the problem. Watch Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore is an NRA member. What we need to do is address the other problems that lead to gun violence.

**d-usa**

Wouldn't surprise me to see more of this:

HUGHSON, Calif. (AP) — A former Marine applauded for voluntarily guarding a central California elementary school apparently misrepresented his service history, U.S. Marine Corps officials said Thursday.

Craig Pusley showed up for a second day of guard duty Thursday at Hughson Elementary School, this time in civilian clothes after wearing military fatigues the day before. He was gone by midmorning, after Unified School District Superintendent Brian Beck discovered discrepancies about Pusley's military service and asked him to leave.

A day earlier, Pusley, 25, told The Modesto Bee he was a sergeant in the Marine Reserve and had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Pusley said he was unemployed and using his reservist pay to support his wife and 3-year-old child.

Capt. Gregory A. Wolf, a Marines spokesman, told The Associated Press on Thursday that Pusley never served overseas and was discharged in 2008 as a private after serving less than a year at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego. He also is not a reservist.

Laura Fong, the principal at Hughson Elementary School, wouldn't comment on the controversy Thursday because she said she didn't know all the facts. But she said it was a "very heartwarming thing" when the former Marine showed up Wednesday, and his presence made her and the staff feel safer.

Before the controversy, parents in the small agricultural community 100 miles southeast of San Francisco thanked Pusley for guarding their children and bought him cups of coffee.

"In the beginning, I thought it was a good idea, because as a parent I was concerned about safety with everything going on," Amber Navarro, 26, said while picking up her first-grader at the school. "He seemed like a really nice guy."

Pusley, who did not respond to calls for comment from the AP, told the Bee he had responded to a call on Facebook for veterans to help protect schools in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. A Facebook group called Veterans on Watch, created this month, is circulating a White House petition that calls for the employment of competent veterans as armed security guards in America's schools, and 2,239 people have signed it so far.

"It would act as a deterrent to have a well-trained first responder on hand to neutralize the situation as soon as possible," said Chad Walker, a former combat medic in the Army and one of the group's founders.

WSMV-TV in Nashville, Tenn., reported that another former Marine, Staff Sgt. Jordan Pritchard, stood guard in front of Gower Elementary in Nashville on Wednesday. Pritchard, who has two children at the school, said he wanted to provide extra security to students and teachers.

Wolf, the Marines spokesman, said the Marine Corps contacted Pritchard, requesting that he stop wearing his uniform outside the school. At no point was the former Marine asked to stop standing in protection of his son's school, Wolf said.

Former Marines are prohibited from wearing their uniform in public, except for military funerals, memorial services, weddings, inaugurals, and parades on national or state holidays.

According to the Official Military Personnel File, Pritchard served from 2003 to 2011 as a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense specialist. He was a staff sergeant and served in Afghanistan.

Marine Corps officials declined to say whether Pusley would face any legal repercussions for lying about his deployment history. However, it's unlikely he will since his fabrication was related to an act of generosity.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law aimed at people making phony claims of heroism on the grounds that it violated First Amendment free speech rights.

___

Wozniacka reported from Fresno, Calif.

I know it feels like you are doing something, but what good does it really do to stand there?

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
And you count a vague survey question that talks simply about a reduction, and not of an actual ban as proof of that?

Sorry. I'm doing my best to learn the sebster method of wildly inaccurate assertions with no supporting references as best I can.

**Monster Rain**

d-usa wrote:

I know it feels like you are doing something, but what good does it really do to stand there?

It made the kids and staff feel safer according to the article.

That's good, right?