Massacre in Connecticut - Page 5

 

Wouldn't recent events prove that to be false? A woman out jogging is supposed to call 911 and relax and enjoy her rape waiting for the police to show up? Or maybe right after a hurricane when police response is nil we should all surrender to the looters? Not to mention the fact that the police don't even have to to respond to 911 calls or any other emergency. They have no duty to respond to reports of crime. Go look it up.

Has anyone mentioned the MUM herself was erm... crazy?

"Nancy Lanza portrayed as 'survivalist' who stockpiled food, water and guns
Collection of guns included handguns, assault rifle and two hunting rifles
..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249185/Nancy-Lanza-Did-paranoid-gun-crazed-mother-trigger-Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-killing-spree.html

Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?

She was possibly "paranoid", possible history of mental illness, may not have related to the son well...

Why does a regular mom have an assault rifle in her house?

Nobody is saying take all the guns away.

But there is no rational reason for anything more than handguns.

If US citizens don't trust the government to save them during looting and zombie outbreaks, then that is the issue, not letting people accumulate enough weaponry to take out an army base.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/18/12 at 4:34am

 

I have a friend of mine that I call a "one of everything" gun owner. It's just his hobby. My wife has a huge stockpile of food. It's because she goes to Costco too much. Does it really matter if my friend has a hunting rifle with a 10 round mag' or a AR-15 with a 10 round mag'? People make hay about "assault rifles" but really these rifles just have a gas powered mech' to reload. Hunting rifles use a more traditional system. (Although many hunters are turning to gas powered for hunting too) Does that make all the difference in the world?

 

Basically the country is flooded with weapons and yet these shooting are rare. If we reduce the weapons by half would the number of shooting drop by half? I don't think so. There's more a correlation with mass shooting and the 24 hour news cycle than there is on the availability of firearms.

 

The Daily Mail?  Really?  I think they reported that she consorted with aliens too.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220103/Man-photographs-UFO-dead-birds-appear-neighbours-garden.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184586/Roswell-incident-There-TWO-UFO-crashes-Roswell-says-Air-Force-official.html

 

No shit there are two search pages full of articles about UFOs from the Daily Mail in the last 4-5 months alone.

 

"“There was nothing odd and weird about her. She was completely normal and tried to help her kids just like all of us would.’’

...

“She was definitely not a survivalist,” Bergquist said. “Shooting was one of her hobbies. It wasn’t her main hobby. She loved the arts, culture. She loved the finer things in life. She loved to go to Red Sox games, and that’s the Nancy I knew.’’

 

“She took up target shooting a few years ago,’’ Tambascio told NBC News. “She was a single mom raising two boys living alone in a house that’s close to the woods. I don’t see anything odd.’’"

 

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2012/12/17/15968547-friend-nancy-lanza-was-very-devoted-to-her-sons?lite

 

You know what?  If you don't live in the US bugger off and look to your own problems.  

 

There's fewer reasons for handguns but there are plenty of rational reasons for rifles in the US and they don't involve prepping for the inevitable zombie invasion.  The question for us is whether those reasons can be addressed without detachable box magazines.  An internal rotary or box magazine is harder to modify to high capacity than in a rifle designed with a "clip".  Reloading takes more time but for hunting and plinking this isn't much of a factor and you still have multiple rounds.  

 

The downsides with an internal magazine is you have to manually cycle the action to clear the gun unless there's a hinged floorplate which might defeat the purpose (dunno, aint a gunsmith).  This could be more prone to user error.

 

On the other hand, the last time I was an idiot with a gun I cleared in the wrong order (worked slide and then ejected magazine) and left a live round in the chamber.  Fortunately the range officer happened to be standing next to me and didn't make me feel too much like an idiot.  Evidently that happens more often than most guys are willing to admit.

 

No, I did not move the goalposts. I pointed out that you could not make a functioning device, and you responded that you did not believe that was accurate. See below.

 

 

I did not argue that fertilizer is hard to obtain, but it is not naive to point out that obtaining it is trivial, while making a device is very difficult without both knowledge and other hard-to-obtain components. That shows how explosives regulations are successful, and that this actually is the case is supported by the lack of incidents involving such devices.

 

Thanks for addressing the other issues. I hope you feel better soon.

Would mental health screenings prior to a firearm purchase (prescription #1 in the linked article) have stopped any of the recent shootings (all of which appear to have involved legal purchases...except one where someone apparently lied about mental health questions on the application.)?

 

I say probably. Though not in the case of this specific shooting.

 

If we all agree this would be a reasonable step to take and would have an appropriate freedom/right-respect-to-safety ratio. There are still issues to be ironed out and potential problems to be aware of:

 

1. Who does the screening? What measures can or should be taken to avoid fraud here?
2. What mental condition(s) would constitute a valid reason to deny gun ownership or purchase or use?
3. Can #2 be objectively defined well enough to avoid denying gun rights to someone just because we don't like them or they seem a little weird or "out of the mainstream"? In other words, can this be done in way that avoids political/opinion/viewpoint gun ownership blacklisting?

 

Would this be a reasonable and right-respecting step to take?

 

If we combined this with better security measures at certain popular targets (e.g., schools...these are in the control of the government...the other places like malls and theaters should remain the responsibility of their owners to provide proper security.) would these two measures get us 80% of the way there while still respecting people's individual rights?

A reasoned and rational and thoughtful take on school security.

Interesting, if true.

This particular case (combined with the other recent ones) point to the complex and multifaceted nature of the problem:

 

1. Mental health -- Do we need more education and awareness? How? When? Where? From whom? Are there any medications that are actually contributing factors here (e.g., there are claims that boys who start Ritalin and then stop actually become violent after stopping...could this be true with other behavioral/mental/emotional medications or pharmaceutical "cocktails?")
2. Parental awareness and action as well as (close) community/friend support and assistance -- There seem to be things that come out after the fact (and perhaps it is a hindsight is 20/20 kind of thing) that suggests that people close to and friends with (or even close family) coming around someone in the situation described above to support and help and encourage could have been a mitigating factor. Instead, it seems, this women might have been left to her own devices. Maybe no one really understood the problem. Maybe no one knew how to help. Maybe we're all so busy "bowling alone" that real community is falling apart. The second part of course is her apparent foolishness in keeping firearms accessible to her (apparently) mentally unstable son. Now this may or may not be true. They may have been locked up or hidden (to her knowledge) and he simply overcame those obstacles, so it's hard to judge there. But if the article above is correct, she knew something was wrong and would have been wise to take measures to keep them away from him. Then maybe things all happened too fast for her. Either way, she paid with her life and, unfortunately, so did many others.
3. Facility (esp. school) security -- What can schoolls (et al) do to improve security as a preventative measure?
4. Gun possession and use by mentally unstable people -- See above about possibilities of mental health screenings prior to purchase.

 

If we look at all of these shootings together, it appears that not any one of these things would have helped by itself. I would submit that even the banning of guns would not likely have stopped all of them (or maybe any of them.) There needs to be a conversation alright, but it needs to be a comprehensive conversation.

Matches are a component of setting off TNT.  Matches aren't regulated or monitored closely.

Oxygen is an essential component to fires.  Atmospheric oxygen isn't regulated or monitored closely.

 

Your whole semantics game you are playing with muppetry is absolutely absurd, SDW.  

 

 

I was going to post that I had seen rather different reports concerning the mother, including interviews with her neighbors that painted actually a rather normal picture of her.  Her divorce proceedings also didn't suggest anything unusual.  

 

The media is now being asked to leave the town alone.  Though the story is important to get out, there is often too much zeal and haste and thus a lot of mis-information is presented.  Though sometimes changed later, it is possible for somebody who chooses not to follow the story too closely to get lost.  I still have the email from CNN saying the shooter's name was Ryan (the brother).  I also recall that he was supposedly in the school with two handguns, with the rifle in the car.  And on and on.  The media needs to, well, stop being so media-like.  And we need to be careful which media outlets to get our info from and to double check anything wild.

 

Regarding telling people to bugger off if they don't live in the US: I don't agree.  We should be open to opinions to people around the world.  Most of us actually ultimately came from somewhere else.  We also don't have all the answers to our problems, as incidents such as this shooting vividly show the world on an all-too-regular basis.  We have serious, serious problems in our society and I for one am open to discussion  from anywhere on how to fix them.  Perhaps the source was wrong (it was, and that needs to be pointed out), but I don't see a need to tell him to bugger off.  He is trying to engage in the topic.  Many people from around the world travel or study in the US or have friends or family who live there and are deeply interested in its goings on.  The US also jumps into the gojngs-on of other countries (often with military force like Iraq) and many people will want to discuss the US.  As I don't currently live in the US, should I too bugger off and just worry about things where I live?  During the Iraq war's early stages, I was called un-American by some friends because I didn't want to return home  to show my support for out country at a time of war.  Many countries around the world (for example, Iraq or Afghanistan) might wish to say the same bugger--- to the US...

Edited by Bergermeister - 12/18/12 at 4:01pm

Why Bans on So-Called “Assault Weapons” Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings

This has some good information for people that don't know a lot about firearms and "assault weapons".

 

He's not engaging...he's making a value judgement regarding that crazy american woman and her guns based on the crap written in the Daily Mail as well as stating that it is irrational for americans to own anything but handguns...which is an idiotic statement in itself.

 

So seriously, he and other folks who want to judge us can bugger off.

Yea they can bugger off because the daily mail knows two things about firearms. 1) Jack 2) Shit

 

It certainly is a major component, mass wise, but that doesn't matter if you cannot obtain other essential components, so I don't understand why you think that comment was inaccurate. I stand by my statement that you would not be able to construct a functional device because you would not be able to obtain the components necessary to initiate it.

 

 

You may have misunderstood that comment. I'm saying that it is trivially easy to get the fertilizer, but very difficult to construct the device. I know precisely how to make one, but if I did not have access to the other components I would still be stymied. ANFO is just too shock insensitive to improvise an effective initiation train.

 

 

I think you have said that you are a teacher. That's a tough life in terms of germ exposure.

 

Unfortunately this is absolutely correct - the focus on "assault" weapons is pointless. None of the mass incidents that I can recall have involved fully automatic weapons. Close up a handgun is the weapon of choice. The fact that the subject in the latest case used a rifle doesn't change that.

 

I find myself agreeing with most of your last two posts, which I admit surprises me. If there is a way forwards, I would expect it to address two issues:

 

1. Keeping weapons from being legally acquired by those ill-suited to owning them - firearm owners licenses, background checks, mental health checks?

 

2. Keeping weapons from being illegally acquired by that same group from legal, law-abiding owners - enhanced regulations regarding storage of firearms?

 

I cannot imagine how one might address illegal acquisition of illegal weapons.

 

Yeah those are both difficult challenges. Clearly the first is easier. Perhaps this idea of mental health screening has some merit, but it would have to be carefully implemented.

The media sensationalism eggs these psychos on. Social media and 24 hour news cycle guarantees fame.

 

Well, sorta.  .223 semi-autos are more lethal than their .22LR counterparts and are lighter, carry more rounds (typically) and generate less recoil than their higher caliber counterparts. The assault rifle design is optimized for combat.  There is a reason that LE uses the AR-15 and it's not (just) because it looks more cool than a hunting rifle.

Fair enough, there are things I would like to focus on locally. I have a fondness for the US though so it does disturb me that the US is now in decline because of the lack of domestic oil, decimation of the middle class and the economy on the brink of freefall. Coupled with one of the worst health care outcomes in the developed world, particularly high levels of mental illness and mental disability, it is sad to see a fine country after 200 years reach its peak and now faced with slow but steady decline of sorts.

No country is perfect but I treasure the good aspects of the USA that is beneficial for all of humanity.
 
When I was at the range (one and only so far) last year, I never understood the "one in the chamber". It's like when you load the magazine you have to slide it to make sure the 1st bullet goes in, then yeah eject magazine then ??

My point remains. If anything better than handguns is allowed for "hunting", "collecting", etc. its wide availability I feel enables more mass shootings by nature of their higher rate of fire, etc.

Given two psychos of equal "psychoness"... Give one a Glock and another an AR-15. Who can do more damage?

Give one a bulletproof vest, body armour, helmet, etc. and another nothing. Who is more likely to do more damage?

Why was the mom in this case not storing the guns properly? Did she just leave them lying about the house? What are the laws about this? USA or not, these are pertinent questions for all of us.

You have a right to defend yourself, fair enough, but accumulating dangerous items surely affects the community.

No rational person is asking for a blanket ban but with the state of mental health globally, leaving a high number of highly dangerous weapons all over the place is, by common sense, asking for lots of trouble.

Let alone easy access over the Internet.

Do you see the common-sense argument here? It doesn't matter if YOU use it for legitimate purpose, because SOMEONE can easily ABUSE it.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/19/12 at 1:20am

 

I don't think you get it, the enshrined right to carry weapons in the US-constitution is meant to allow/enable citizens to have the fire-power to stand up against the government should the need arise.

 

So, yes, for that purpose allowing only handguns won't cut it.

 

Besides, most massacres were committed using handguns, so a ban on assault rifles won't stop massacres.

Edited by Nightcrawler - 12/19/12 at 1:27am

But there are many things in the constitution that have changed and evolved over two centuries. Any progressive society including the US has not followed every single part of their original constitution/laws to the letter.

I understand the right to defend against the government as well, but in this day and century, surely that must be tempered for a desire for a better community? Which was part of the founding fathers' intents, right? A better society. Not a society as they defined to be better as the fixed model to follow blow-by-blow.

Using the constitution as something "fixed" to argue one point or another gets silly at some stage, as important as it is in establishing one of the best systems of government the world has seen.

Can the US, and the world, take the next step?

Surely the right to carry handguns can be balanced with a restriction on any other weapons, though of course you can shoot those other weapons at a range.

There's this thing called compromise.

Everyone wants the same thing, ie. no needless deaths.

Assault weapons belong in the military and the police force not with ordinary citizens.There is no reason ever to own this type of weapon period.
 

Please define "assault weapon".

 

Such sweet language! 

Edited by Bergermeister - 12/19/12 at 5:25am

 

Our Suez Crisis has not yet happened and the death of Pax Americana is not yet at hand.

 

 

 

Whenever the action as been worked and a bullet actually chambered you have "one in the chamber' and the gun can fire if the safety is disengaged.  Having a round chambered puts you at a higher state of readiness to fire:

 

Condition 0: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety Off, loaded magazine
Condition 1: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety On, loaded magazine
Condition 2: round in chamber, hammer uncocked, loaded magazine
Condition 3: empty chamber, hammer uncocked, loaded magazine
Condition 4: empty chamber, no magazine in weapon

 

Condition dumbass: round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety off, no magazine

 

Some folks will eject the magazine, reload 1 round and then reinsert the magazine.  Now the gun is holding as much as it can.

 

Anyone who is going to school me on the nuances of condition 0 and 2, 1911s, Glocks, etc...well cool.

 

 

 

The rate of fire with a semi auto pistol is higher than a bolt action hunting rifle and no different than a semi-auto rifle.  A crazy person with multiple pistols, dozens of magazines in a coat or backpack at a mall or school looks like any other person with a coat or backpack.  A crazy person with a rifle at a mall or school "stands out" a bit.

 

The 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting was done with pistols (32 dead).  The 2009 Binghamton shooting was done with pistols (13 dead).  The 2009 Ft Hood shooting was done with pistols (13 dead).

 

Note that the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in the US is the 2007 VT mass shooting.

 

 

 

Given that Cho had a Glock-19 then history states Glock.  

 

The only scenario where the AR-15 is scarier is with a sniper operating over a long period as in the 2002 beltway sniper.  Thank god there haven't been any copycats of that one because that plain sucked.

 

 

 

History states the one with nothing did more damage.  

 

VT massacre - 2 pistols, no armor - 32 dead 17 wounded.  

 

Aurora shooting 12 dead 59 wounded, M&P 15, shotgun and Glock, some armor and tactical gear - reportedly less than 30 rnds was fired by the M&P 15 so the majority of the shooting was with his Glock 22.

 

 

 

How do you know this?  A gun safe is only safe from folks who don't know the combo.  It would be reasonable for most adults in a household with guns to know the combo to the family gun safe. Not saying this is the case BUT it is plausible unless the news has reported otherwise.

 

 

 

I'm for gun control but only if it makes sense.  I can see the Australia model working but typically anything less is just security kabuki theater.  The usual mish-mash of local and federal gun control laws in the US are simply broken and hurt law-abiding citizens more.

 

I would vote for a national referendum like the Australia one (maybe toned down a little) and against pretty much anything else except for required waiting periods, registration and mandatory training.  

 

The latter wont help against mass shootings but perhaps reduce accidental death and injury and increase the chances that a crazy person is correctly identified and kept from legally buying guns.

 

Any semi-auto or fully auto firearm shooting an intermediate cartridge (7.62x39mm (AKs), 5.56 mm NATO, .223 Remington) with a detachable external magazine.

 

Frankly, just limit the sales of intermediate cartridge ammo to tightly regulated licensed ranges where the ammo has to be used on premises, eliminate production of new weapons and institute a buy back program and that solves much of the problem with "assault weapons" and mass shootings.

 

Just live with the fact that preppers will buy thousands and thousands of rounds ahead of this ammo ban understanding that they are mostly going to keep that ammo safe for when the SHTF.

Why aren't all-weather matches tightly controlled?

Texas School's 'Guardian Plan' Allows Teachers To Have Guns

Yet another sensible and clear-thinking perspective

By sensible and clear thinking do you mean a position that you agree with?

Saw this making the rounds and it hits the nail on the head.

 

Diary of a Psychopath

 

Jan 18, 2013: I cannot take people any more. They are all so evil. I need to slaughter 100's of them. How shall I do it? Well, I could use gasoline, and block entrances to a building. I could concoct some form of poisonous gas and introduce it into a ventilation system. I could create an explosive and collapse a building. No, none of those ways are too good. I think I must use a firearm.

Jan 18, 2013: I purchased my firearm. It looks very scary, and it is black. It is a rifle. Now to purchase hi-capacity magazines.

Jan 19, 2013: Luckily, there was a gun show going on. I purchased 12 high-capacity magazines.

Jan 20, 2013: I went back to the gun show, and bought 2000 rounds of ammunition.

Jan 21, 2013: I've scouted the place I wish to do my massacre. I have a black ski mask, black trousers, a black shirt, and trench coat.

Jan 22, 2013: HOW DEPRESSING!!! I was on the way to kill all those people, and I heard on the radio that Obama and the Congress and Senate just passed a big gun control bill!!! Well, obviously, I can't do my massacre NOW.... I mean COME ON... it's ILLEGAL now. So, I turned my car around, went to the police station, and turned in my rifle, magazines, and ammunition. I WAS SO CLOSE, too!!! Those politicians, man, they are on TOP of things!!

About carrying in schools. As someone that has a CPL I think all CPL holders should be required to carry nonlethal force if they are carrying lethal force. Also my CPL class was a bit of a joke. There should be training on par with the police force before someone can carry in a school.

They can start fires.  Fires can kill A LOT of people.