Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

[Esau of Isaac]

The rioting would be proof that common citizens cannot be trusted with guns.

You keep saying this mind-bogglingly awful ideal over and over again, but you haven't actually explained why this is true.

If your argument is that people will always be murdered then why are you in this argument in the first place? Why are you against taking away weapons that can potentially harm people?

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but a person is much less dangerous without a gun then with a gun. If people are truly failing to realize this than I have very little hope in humanity left.

I am against taking away weapons that can harm people because it harms people that don't intend to and never will harm people because of the people that will. If you're arguing that a person without a gun is much less harmful than one with, then couldn't the same be said of knives? Bats? Any metal or weighty objects?

It's a personal line.

Arguing that people will always die from murder is the same as saying that it doesn't matter the fact that 28 people, a majority being children under the age of 8, were killing because it is common. That is sickening.

But fine. You want people to keep their guns and let the same god damn thing happen again and again and doing fuck all about it. Fine. I'll respect your opinion and leave this topic alone. But when another school has a shooting and another topic like this starts up, don't come in saying the same shit again, because it's just gonna lead to arguments over whether or not guns should be taken away from citizens.

A mass-murdering occurs through use of a knife. I argue that all knives should be banned.

What is your response?

I guarantee it involves equivocation on your part.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Esau of Isaac

[Anouleth]

Because the military is trained in the use of guns and part of that training is not to go on a fucking rampage at a school and kill everyone you see before killing yourself when running low on bullets.

lol really

if only we had thought of such a solution earlier! the key is just to tell everyone not to murder each other! i'm sure that will work amazingly. why did nobody think of such a thing before?

[Excellen Browning]

So what is it that separates a military person holding a gun and a civilian holding a gun that (to your knowledge) absolutely eliminates all gun homicide?

What are you even saying? Do you deny the poor shape your country leaves it's veterans in?

http://en.wikipedia..../Killeen,_Texas

http://www.uitzendin...eringen/1116802

Actually, we can do better than this.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Columbus-balance-Georgia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_town

Compare all of them with US or state averages if you will.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen

[Esau of Isaac]

What are you even saying? Do you deny the poor shape your country leaves it's veterans in?

http://en.wikipedia..../Killeen,_Texas

http://www.uitzendin...eringen/1116802

Actually, we can do better than this.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Columbus-balance-Georgia.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_town

Compare all of them with US or state averages if you will.

I am honestly not sure what you read when your eyes scanned over my post but I'm pretty sure it had to have been a doozy to get a response like this.

[Excellen Browning]

I was actually quite confused what you meant because what you said didn't make a lick of sense.

[Esau of Isaac]

You stated that a soldier does not murder other people with guns. I am asking why that is so, and why this treatment is out of reach for civilians.

Would you trust any and all military members that have returned to civilian life with firearm ownership?

[Excellen Browning]

No. what I stated is the following:

"because in my country, soldiers leave their weapons at the base and get good (mental) health care. I have never seen any reason at all why a soldier would shoot someone and to my knowledge hasn't happened for as long as I lived. "

Did I say a soldier can't kill someone else? No, that's what they do for a living, or they're directly involved with it. Did I say a soldier from my country can't kill another person from my country? No. Did I say a soldier from my country can't kill someone else from my country with a firearm? No. What I said is that I have no reason to believe a soldier could and would - with relative ease - acquire a gun and ammunition through illegal means and then to use those to shoot civilians from my country. Or at the very least that the rate in which this occurs is highly comparable to the rate at which this occurs with civilians, criminal or no.

[Esau of Isaac]

Right and I am asking you why the firearm homicide rate among military men is so low comparatively and why civilians can't replicate these results. I am also more recently asking whether you would support members of the military having access to firearms on leave as such.

[Excellen Browning]

Right and I am asking you why the firearm homicide rate among military men is so low comparatively and why civilians can't replicate these results. I am also more recently asking whether you would support members of the military having access to firearms on leave as such.

...

I speak clearly and still you act like a twerp? I'm done with this.

[Original Alear]

Ugh. I know people who know people who were involved in or with this community and may have known victims and the shooter...it was rough finding out about this stuff. Well in general I am stupid and selfish so I will post anyway because I love soapboxes.

As far as the Trayvon Martin thing (which was very barely mentioned but I've decided to try and give a better context for in the debate on gun control by being an ignorant asshole):

http://en.wikipedia..../Bernhard_Goetz

In the larger conversation about gun control, I think this man's story and perhaps legacy (at least from my perspective) is an important "visible" point regarding vigilante justice and gun ownership. Racism was clearly an important and overt factor in the shooting of 4 people. But it is likely about more than that. It seems strange that they did not die, and horrible that one was paralyzed. It seems unbelievably scary that the ante may have been upped a bit since this point, where panic - or the possibility of it - feels a more justifiable reason for violence, as well as that 1 person who dies feels a little less horrible than 4 people who are severely wounded, although it is probably easier to kill one person in cold blood than wound four in a panic in situations like this (keeping other things roughly equal?).

Also like Anouleth said, I also believe that the NRA basically sucks, and I think they had some involvement in defending this guy (and pushing things forward). However, understand this line as being an expression of bias that I suspect is justified but do not have an inclination to review before justifying it here. I did want to say something on the issue since it was mentioned in like 2 posts here.

Well here is my donation for this discussion.

(Quotes in order of appearance are from Pauline, Raven, Life)

That is a non-answer. If one truly wants to prevent these episodes, one must be pragmatic. People naturally go with the path of least resistance. We don't like to struggle for things, or fight against opposing forces. Adam Lanza's mother owned all three of the guns he used. They were sitting in his house. Those guns made it so much easier (and I guarantee you, more likely) for him to kill those kids. If it was harder for him, if we had tougher regulations like in the UK, would it still have happened? Yes, it's possible. He could have found them on the black market, or maybe some guy who knows a guy, or wherever. But it would have been so much harder for him, and that's reason enough.

It sounds like you are talking about whether Adam Lanza's mom should have had a more difficult time getting guns...?

Alright that was a bit facetious. But I'm still going to run with the mom owning the guns thing.

A locker with a good lock, a passcode or combination, not written down, might mean the mother knows the passcode and Adam doesn't.

Obvious downsides:

->This makes the guns less accessible and less useful for a home invasion.

->The locker is probably big and expensive (takes up space).

->Adam doesn't know the combination because he's not given the right or responsibility of defending the home with guns unless his mom is there to open the safe.

So then consider,

the worth of Adam's mother owning the gun.

the worth of Adam's mother owning 3 guns.

AND

the risk in Adam or really just about anybody (particularly a robber or something) breaking into the safe.

Yes, I know we cannot undo what's been done with hypotheticals. Nor do I suggest that that Adam's mom was bad for not taking these sorts of ideas either into account, or not practising them (and perhaps she did). All this really addresses is (even vaguely) is the importance of safety and responsibility when dealing with these kinds of weapons if ownership is to be allowed, and that it's probably difficult to determine the right measures.

Also:

http://thebluereview...-lanzas-mother/

I thought this may be an important balance to what might feel like a charge against anyone who owns firearms, or parents dealing with children with disabilities which I don't understand and am not acquainted with.

But it wasn't intended to be a charge.

One thing I'm sure of, is that it would be a lot easier to change the laws on firearms than attempt to find and help every mentally unstable person who is capable of doing something like this. The problem is USA is already up to their balls in firearms, changing any laws would still mean some people would keep their illegal weapons even after being told to hand them in. But I believe some prevention measures would be better than doing fuck all. It's a sad position for the innocent people within USA to be in.

So there's the issue (I think).

If law enforcement can't or won't or isn't adequately enforcing existing laws on firearms

Then fuck all about changing laws as what's useful to talk about, at least to some extent. At that point, you're just working against margins that (reading here) it doesn't seem like you know a lot about.

___

EDIT-That was too strong. It doesn't seem like anyone is claiming to know a lot about them.

___

Instead, talk about what you can do regarding the mental health industry or law enforcement or people who own or have access to guns, and finding mechanisms to change those things.

WTF is it when you change the laws and demand people hand in lethal weapons and some don't? That sounds a little too close to incidental retroactive incrimination to me...that's a term I just made up. It means being willing to make someone a criminal for owning something it used to be legal for them to own. Of course, it's their choice to be criminals, so as a fine point, they are just breaking the law as it goes into effect (presumably there was a delay during which they could have acted accordingly in disposing of the firearms).

Of course, I do understand that matters of killing and life and death are crucial, so airy and abstract matters of principle (such as the right to one's property, like assets) are to be weighed carefully. I'm trying not to mean that sarcastically. I really don't feel capable of engaging with this debate in general adequately, but I am trying. I'm just trying to point out it might be simpler than changing the law AND trying to catch any undesirables simultaneously - just the one, with the focus on the other being the ones you already don't have. Can we (I mean CAN we I guess) drop the war on drugs a bit and work a bit more on a struggle against murder? (fuzzy wordplay)

That's how it feels for the moment at least.

Seriously. His address was also trying to appease gun holders and supporters of the Second Amendment because it is their "god given right" to bear arms. Either Obama should be telling the nation within 24 hours (because I heard about this shit a good 3 hours after it went down while I was in Vegas) that he's going to strike the amendment or not say anything at all. That's how Stephen Harper would have done it and that's why Stephen Harper also has a positive approval rating and has held one since... the Conservatives got into power. That's about 2007, right?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

I admit I pulled this using google. I don't remember either of the oaths Obama gave, nor did I have a good perspective for seeing if he crossed his fingers. Just wanted to point out something. I do think Obama may have made some rash promises, don't pay much attention though.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mouse

[Esau of Isaac]

...

I speak clearly and still you act like a twerp? I'm done with this.

What are you babbling about? I'm literally just asking you why your evaluation of military men can't be applied to civilians.

[Constable Reggie]

Glad to see we're pinpointing the real, evil problem of gun violence.

[Phoenix Wright]

In the words of Chris Rock, "What ever happened to crazy?"

If we're going to lay the blame on any medium of entertainment, are we to assume that any and all people alive currently are ticking time-bombs? Not only are these claims unsubstantiated, but they don't make sense in the first place.

But I guess I'm preaching to the choir here.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

If we're going to lay the blame on any medium of entertainment, are we to assume that any and all people alive currently are ticking time-bombs? Not only are these claims unsubstantiated, but they don't make sense in the first place.

They don't need to make sense. All they need to do is divert the attention away from guns and pin the blame on anything that has any violence in it while completely ignoring the fact that these same forms of media they blame exist in other countries that have gun control and substantially lower homicide rates (which logically should spell out "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" right?) It's a perfect piece of evidence for the phrase "history repeats itself":

>Mass murder occurs with a gun as the murder weapon

>Gun control debate pops up due to an increased number of people voicing their opinions on the matter

>Politicians blame anything that isn't guns and contains some form of violence EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAVE GUNS IN IT (Dynasty Warriors).

>No significant change is made

>Next mass murder involving guns occurs and cycle repeats.

If there's something they should blame the media for in the US, it's how overly obsessed the country is with celebrities.

But I guess I'm preaching to the choir here.

Pretty much, it really doesn't help that so many people in the US don't really think about things until something bad happens to them or their loved ones or tragedies like this occur (though if it's not related to them, the concern for the issue is rather temporary).

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sirius

[Constable Reggie]

They don't need to make sense. All they need to do is divert the attention away from guns and pin the blame on anything that has any violence in it while completely ignoring the fact that these same forms of media they blame exist in other countries that have gun control and substantially lower homicide rates (which logically should spell out "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" right?) It's a perfect piece of evidence for the phrase "history repeats itself":

Again, I highly doubt these people are trying to deflect the blame off gun control issues. They truly believe that violent video games can cause violent tendencies. It's not replacing gun control debate.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Again, I highly doubt these people are trying to deflect the blame off gun control issues. They truly believe that violent video games can cause violent tendencies. It's not replacing gun control debate.

I can see that many of them are like this, I'm just not sure that this is true for all of them because that's quite a lot of people mentally unfit for their position if it is ALL of them which pretty much paints and even grimmer picture for the US' future.

Gun manufacturers would suffer immensely if the push for gun control was successful so bribes and whatnot can't be out of the question.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sirius

[Constable Reggie]

You seriously think that local CT communities, 30 miles away from the school, are being possibly bribed by the very group that they're antagonized against? Please get real.

Gun advocate politicians, primarily the NRA, are the ones trying to knowingly and lazily divert attention to video games (which is a weak argument that they haven't really substantiated in any way). Not community groups, especially the ones that were actually affected by the shooting. Stop trying to chide America's gun issues with incorrect assumptions.

Michael Atkinson must own several million guns, or is being heavily bribed by gun advocates, if your accusation had any merit.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Dr. Tarrasque]

You seriously think that local CT communities, 30 miles away from the school, are being possibly bribed by the very group that they're antagonized against? Please get real.

Gun advocate politicians, primarily the NRA, are the ones trying to knowingly and lazily divert attention to video games (which is a weak argument that they haven't really substantiated in any way). Not community groups, especially the ones that were actually affected by the shooting. Stop trying to chide America's gun issues with incorrect assumptions.

Michael Atkinson must own several million guns, or is being heavily bribed by gun advocates, if your accusation had any merit.

I did not speak of them, gun advocate politicians is what I had in mind as I hadn't spotted your post earlier.

EDIT: Ah, this article, popped up while at work and we just laughed at how stupid this is.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sirius

[Espinosa]

So has there been any more information about the murderer supposedly being autistic? That's a claim that could negatively affect the lives of a lot of people worldwide.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

So has there been any more information about the murderer supposedly being autistic? That's a claim that could negatively affect the lives of a lot of people worldwide.

Or, perhaps, people will begin to find better treatments for children with autism.

[Original Alear]

So has there been any more information about the murderer supposedly being autistic? That's a claim that could negatively affect the lives of a lot of people worldwide.

http://nation.foxnew...nality-disorder

In addition to this, I did (not do) have another article which claimed an anonymous law enforcement officer had reported Asperger's as a diagnosis, and that this was corroborated by family friends of the Van Lanzas. Either the news article (perhaps in paraphrasing) or the family friends in question shared the perspective (made the claim) that the condition - including the awareness of the condition as a condition (wow, sorry) - dominated the lives of Adam and his mom.

I understand "lol fox" etc but I do operate under the assumption that certain kinds of reports, based on sources, can be trusted if the sources can be trusted, that there is little reason for the report of the name associated with the diagnosis to be lied about (by these individuals), and that there is little likelihood for them to make mistakes regarding it. At this level, it seems more likely that the diagnosis was in some way off, than that it was misremembered (but that seems a necessary impediment when a diagnosis carries a different weight with the diagnostician than with the diagnosed, and those who surround them, which seems like anything from a desirable partitioning to a necessary partitioning).

Certainly I think that a negative/positive impact on people in general, as a result of reporting this information, is hard to weigh, and could be negative, especially if the information is ill-considered. I personally suspect that the treatment side of the story is no excuse for ignoring gun control, which seems to be what people here have suggested might happen (though it often seems like individuals are concerned about both).

I understand this might be outdated for you, but I have no idea what "more" means when I have no idea what information you have, or have looked for, and what your concerns are regarding the satisfaction of this conclusion (that he had asperger's, which is apparently on the autism spectrum: incidentally I know nothing useful about these terms).

Edited January 4, 2013 by Mouse

[BrightBow]

Or, perhaps, people will begin to find better treatments for children with autism.

When did something like this ever happen?

When a shooting happens, the only consequence is that the blame game is played for a while. In the meantime, schools will dispel students for reasons of unbelievable paranoia.

For people with autism, this just means that they are being even more discriminated, bullied and isolated then they already are.

Edited January 5, 2013 by BrightBow

[Dandragon]

When did something like this ever happen?

When a shooting happens, the only consequence is that the blame game is played for a while. In the meantime, schools will dispel students for reasons of unbelievable paranoia.

For people with autism, this just means that they are being even more discriminated, bullied and isolated then they already are.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the reasons these kids even go shooting at their school involve the fact that they were bullied? This cycle is going into an endless spiral.

[Original Alear]

For people with autism, this just means that they are being even more discriminated, bullied and isolated then they already are.

I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but I would be hesitant to assume it ALREADY has turned out badly for other kids with a similar diagnosis to the one it seems likely Adam had, simply that they share an association.

The thing I think people who receive that kind of attention sometimes resent is that because they share a diagnosis, they are presumed to actually have the same problems, needs, etc as someone who goes out and kills a bunch of other people with nothing even resembling a passable rationale. Same goes for those who go to school, have single mothers, or have parents with firearms, I'd imagine (if those things receive attention). It's one thing to say that the problems Adam was dealing with were out of his depth, and that even if he "failed," others around him did too, but it's another to pick and choose aspects of his personality which aren't meant to be all-encompassing (such as a diagnosis) and assume that it was his treatment for that illness that fell through, or that whatever would have worked for him as treatment would work for everyone else with the same condition. Especially if we aren't really well educated about the autism spectrum (for instance, is the diagnosis and name the be all and end all of identifying a treatment plan, or are there other factors, even outside the autism spectrum, that help determine treatment).

In the meantime, schools will dispel students for reasons of unbelievable paranoia.

If you mean expel, schools will do this regardless of school massacres, and at other times be far too lenient (most likely).

[Raven]

I think Piers Morgan deserves a medal for sticking to his guns in the whole debate on gun control. The petition to get him deported just because he is arguing against guns was laughable, and not to mention totally contradictory to the first amendment. Hypocritical.