Massacre in Connecticut - Page 3

 

Really? On what do you base this claim?

 

Also, it seems interesting that most of the discussion is about the guns here and little (if any) about the level of security provided by the government schools.

 

 

 

Of course you do.

 

 

 

I will. I'll see if that really works of if using actual logic rather than kindergarden-like techniques, as you've suggested, works better. 

 

 

 

I imagine there are a lot of things (including the level of taxation and size of government and its spending) that the founding fathers wouldn't be proud of...but it seems the same folks who are typically anti-gun never seem to imagine that.

 

 

 

Yes it is. But let's get back to the subject at hand shall we?

 

 

 

It is very interesting and this common thread ought to be investigated more closely as well. Perhaps there is something going on here that we're not seeing or fully understanding that is driving these (predominantly) young men to carry out these suicidal and homicidal events.

Assuming the guard could spot the shooter, assuming the shooter didn't have an element of surprise, assuming a shooter couldn't smuggle weapons past the entrance, assuming it was the only entrance. Posting an armed guard at every entrance is simply impractical, even a small school can have four entrances. The cost vs. benefit probably doesn't play out so well here.


A teacher stood up to a gunman to do the right thing, but a politician wouldn't stand up to a journalist for what they believe in. PR wise, I would think it's best to get a hold of the message as soon as possible, and in this case, that means being prepared and being willing to mix it up conversationally.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/16/12 at 9:06pm

 

And, in this particular instance, all of those are reasonable assumptions.

 

 

 

Which are typically locked and only openable from the inside.

That's the problem that really burns me up. Everytime something like this happens, it's all victims, victims, oh... think of the victims.

SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

Otherwise it's just a matter of time until the next "vigil" and "mourning".

My hearts go out to the families of the dead and all those traumatised.

BUT SORT THIS SHIT OUT, USA.

Either give everybody a gun and sort it out Wild West style (ludicrous, but if people really want that...) or take away ALL the guns except for the police, military and very limited hunting (none of this "personal protection" stuff).

GIVE MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT to the psychos that do this ~ no one in their right mind does this, it's always mental health issues at play.

Debate

Debate

Debate

ONLY MORE DEATH

while pointless debating goes on.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/16/12 at 9:33pm

It's reasonable to assume a shooter doesn't have the element of surprise? I think that's a stretch, and that's putting it generously.

Indeed, perhaps we should trial giving every security guard in every school a gun (heck, MP5s), across the USA. Let's see what happens then.

Will the psychos then come at the schools with bazookas and AK-47s? Probably.

(This is an anti-gun rant, to clarify)

More seriously though, can the pro-gun folks tell us how these psychos are getting such things such as bulletproof vests, semi-auto and auto handguns, submachine guns, unlimited ammo that will make COD gamers blush, etc.? As in, how do they get enough stuff to take a whole SWAT team down? Why is no one doing anything about it?

 

The kids walked in through the front door carrying an AR-15. Yes. I don't think it's a stretch at all. Assuming an attentive security guard and not some fat-ass, donut-eating government slacker.

MJ:  Government can do no good!

MJ:  Give a hundred thousand government employees guns!

 

Or would you prefer voluntary armed citizens with itchy trigger fingers?  How many "suspicious" students will be gunned down by accident?

That certainly is a contradiction. Unless we hire ex-spec-ops mercs to do school protection. That'll be fun. They can also teach the school children how to kill someone with only a string of dental floss. Life skills FTW!

(s)It will be nice to turn our classrooms into something resembling a warclan in Africa, with child soldiers to boot.(/s)

 

No, it might be a personal attack. Except for the fact that it is completely true. An ad-hom attack would be where he presented a point and I countered it by declaring he's a jerk or something along those lines.

 

There is a tone of menace in BR's statements. They reflect a tone similar to what we see in these attackers and murders with their various statement and manifestos.

 

I'm intolerant of lazy magical thinking, yes.  If you want to believe stupid shit, feel free.  Stop influencing society and politics with it.  You begin to affect others with your lazy magical thinking.  That's not OK.

 

He is intolerant. (Self admitted.) He demands someone forgo their right to speak, vote or act to influence society or politics. It's not okay for this to happen.

 

You, the ignorant and hateful among us, are a dying breed. The march of progress will continue to move forward and you can either let go of your bigotry or be a footnote of infamy in history--a bitter reminder of what the worst of humanity has to offer.

 

Again, there isn't a point being made her to refute. This is straight up manifesto type writing.  This is hate.

 

 

 

When government is the solution, it must be a complete solution. Liberals blame their failures on all things not-government.

Edited by trumptman - 12/17/12 at 6:41am

Sobering list of rampage murders around the world:

 

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

 

Of note, the school massacres show 6 of the 10-worst occurred in the US.  What is it that leads Americans to murder at schools?  

 

Not yet updated: school mass killings:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres

 

9 of the 30-worst happened in the US.  Germany and China are the only other countries listed with multiple incidents in the worst 30.

 

Also, why do these monsters kill so many innocent young people and then commit suicide?

Edited by Bergermeister - 12/17/12 at 12:59am

Trumpet has absolutely gone too far in this thread.  To stand by statements that another forum member is comparable to a mass murderer is utterly reprehensible.  As disgusting as a person as Trumpet is proving himself to be with said comments, he still cannot be compared to the mass murderer being discussed in this thread.  I hope everyone sees what Trumpet has said here and agrees there's no place for comments like that in this forum.

Here is a good point start to investigate all the medicines that children are put on for nothing really. Meaning anti-depressive medicines and Ridlin which stops the personality of a child who is very active and cannot sit still.Most of these psychiatrists are nuts themselves constantly medicating kids for no dam reason instead of communicating with them.These medicines like the guns should have some sort of regulation.Another concept is do not cut these programs especially the mental health clinics where a lot of these people need to exist in this society without them there will be dangerous individuals out there to kill and do harm unto others.
 

Walked right in, openly carrying, only because concealment and security neutralization measures weren't necessary. The presence of a security guard would have meant that he would have done something different, because it doesn't look like the shooter isn't an idiot like your assumptions seem to make him out to be. You don't think for a second that the presence of a security guard couldn't be neutralized from a distance? The kid knows how to fire the gun, he's probably trained himself on survival strategies given the prepper affinity he has. He knows the school and could have easily planned ahead to neutralize a guard. I would bet he could have easily dropped a hypothetical security guard without ever knowing the guard knowing anything was wrong.

I don't think typical school budgets would allow for the employment of a Jack Bauer type that would spot him.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/17/12 at 5:14am

 

I base the claim on the fact that this was premeditated with a degree of pre planning. Given that, it is reasonable to assume that any armed security in situ would have been targeted. Perhaps the killing of a security guard may have alerted the rest of the school. Perhaps not. With regard to security in public schools - I don't know how much security is provided in schools in the US, but the fact that so much is required, compared to the rest of the developed world, is an indicator in and of itself.

 

The fact that you can't put up an argument against the compassion of the gun law reform lobby is telling.

 

With regard the concept that more guns increases safety, I really don't understand the logic of that. Perhaps it is because I'm an Australian who has seen the fact that since the 1996 ban on semi-automatic rifles, and semi-automatic and pump action shotguns, there have been zero mass shootings involving those weapon types. As part of the new laws a buy back from the government was implemented that resulted in the handing in and destruction of over 600,000 weapons. In 2002 there was a mass shooting involving a student at Monash University with legally acquired hand guns resulting in 2 deaths and 5 woundings. Since then there has been a tightening of handgun regulations. There have been no mass shootings since. So, empirical evidence, at least in Australia's case, suggests that reducing the number of guns in the community has resulted in a reduction of the gun homicide rate. There are still gun homicides of course, but these tend to be in gang versus gang type situations.

 

So far as comparing taxation rates to mass shootings, to me that seems a long bow to draw. One could argue that taxation used to support health, education and infrastructure would be welcomed by your founding fathers as they increase the well-being of citizens. Perhaps if the US were to spend less money on its military (over $710 billion in 2011, or more than the next 10 countries put together), taxation rates could be reduced.

 

I'd prefer private schools.

 

I'm not making him out to be any idiot. I'm sorry of you're given to making faulty assumptions.

 

 

 

Of course that's possible. But now the element of surprise has been lost and the distance must be closed. It seems you think that additional security at the school would have done nothing. How interesting.

 

 

 

Hmmm. Now it sounds like you might be making shit up. But perhaps you'll provide a link to support this characterization of the shooter.

 

Either way, we are now to also assume that the security personnel would not have been trained to spot and identify potential threats. So ALL advantage is to the shooter alone. Got it.

 

 

 

Okay.

 

So this entire debate should be around the guns. None should be given to whether schools can and should provide better security.

 

Again we have the assumption that all advantage is to the shooter and security at the school is simply a sitting duck.

 

 

 

WTF are you talking about?!

 

 

 

Okay. I doubt anyone can convince you either.

 

 

 

Well you wanted to invoke what the founders would or would not have been proud of. Based on the history, my example seems just as relevant. Sorry you find it not so.

For someone of the self-training and planning that we're hearing of so far, yes, it might not have done much. Your assumptions that securlity would have simply stopped him seemed to imply that his strategy wouldn't have changed at all in response to a different scenario.


I don't believe so. Just need to hide behind something and get a shot off. You gave the impression that all advantage is for the security and he couldn't have even walked into the door. I think security might slow him down, but to believe that security would have simply stopped him cold like you suggested. I just don't think so if the shooter did any planning at all.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/17/12 at 6:59am

 

Quite likely you could, but you would not be able to make an explosive device with that material.

Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer is (roughly) half ANFO. Fuel oil is the other half.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/17/12 at 6:50am

Well, you were asking for some logic and facts. Here is a logical hypothesis based upon empirical data. You respond with a glib rejoinder, which I must say makes a mockery of your sig. 

 

Except that I'm not hearing of any "training." I've heard some rumors (that law enforcement officials so far have not substantiated) that he spent some time with his mom at some shooting ranges.

 

Of course I have not read every single article on this story. So if you have additional information, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

 

 

Not at all. Of course his strategy might have changed. It doesn't mean those changes would have worked either. The fact is he was going up against basically nothing.

 

 

 

Properly implemented, I would say that the advantage (not 100%) would go to the security. It's their building, they know their routines and procedures and tools and surveillance, etc.

 

 

 

So we disagree then.

 

Maybe next time a principal will just wave the "This School is a Gun-Free Zone" sign in front of the shooter and see how that works out.

 

No, it's not a straw man, it's a response to your implicit assertion (above) that the solution to these problems does not lie in legislation. And your arguments that the gun laws did not fail in this case actually makes the opposite argument. The laws were not broken, and yet a clearly disturbed individual got hold of three weapons and a large quantity of ammunition. That suggests that the laws are inadequate. That does not mean banning ownership is indicated, but perhaps that laws regarding storage are inadequate, for example.

 

Your argument on the cars issue is specious. The direct mechanism of the crime was not the car he drove in, nor the clothes he wore, nor any other lawful object he possessed other than the weapons. They were the only essential enabling elements.

 

 

When a poster responds to another poster's observation that is qualified by the statement "in my experience", disputing not the observation itself but, on no evidence, asserting that the poster has no experience, then that is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And what he was arguing about was not whether he would need training - he admitted that - but whether typical casual gun owners would have much chance of success in that situation. Although he never actually said that - just made the snide comment about my experience. Do you really want to continue defending SDW on that, because you are now misconstruing both the structure of the discussion, the reason he was wrong and the definition of ad hominem?

 

 

 

How about something like:

 

 Quote:

 

If you are against vaccinations, you are an immediate threat to public health....There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. None. Not at all. There should be no opting out. Vaccines should not only be 100% provided free of charge by the government, but also required by law without personal belief waivers. You are not entitled to your own facts and you are not entitled to jeopardize the health of others because you can't or won't understand the science behind herd immunity.

 

When asked what you do to those who want to be entitled to their rights and bodies and don't want to comply....he doesn't reply. When it is noted that humans have no problem culling animals from the herd who might cause harm and he is asked if culling the human herd is fine to maintain the greater good, he doesn't reply.

 

I see all sorts of judgments against the women and scoffing of "why should I have to pay?" in almost every response thus far.  Bottom line though--if your goal is to truly reduce the number of abortions, this is a proven, effective, and relatively cheap way of doing it.  Religious nutbags or militantly selfish Randians it is then.  Sorry for only giving two options before.  I forgot about the latter.

 

This is a classic ad-hom and done often around here. There isn't any room for disagreement. If you don't agree, then you are the enemy. You are a threat to the herd. You are person who believes in magic and harms others with your beliefs.

 

Society.  Community.  The greater good.  I'm not a selfish motherfucker.

 

Yes what is the solution to make all the "selfish motherfuckers" wake up? What will stop the "fucking idiots" who "force-feed" their "lies" from continuing their harmful actions?

 

Paul Ryan thinks you are a bunch of fucking idiots. What's worse is that Paul Ryan has been called out on many of these lies before and yet continues to repeat them over and over again, thinking you are all too dumb, lazy, or partisan to spit out the diarrhea he is force-feeding you.  Paul Ryan claims it's just chocolate.  Some of you have lost your senses of smell and taste to tell the difference.

 

Again with the ad-homs but the language use. Paul isn't speaking. He is FORCE-FEEDING. If you don't agree with the poster then you are dumb, lazy and partisan. If you have lost perspective then we should question what the poster is advocating to "wake up" those dumb, lazy or people who have lost their ability to reason due to the "force-feeding" of lies that "jeopardize" others because they are "nutbags" or "selfish". They are harming the herd. They are harming society. They are a threat.

 

BR has been asked repeatedly what should happen to those who don't accede to his views that they are threats and who refuse to comply with what he demands of them. He ignores the question and continues on with the demonizing and demands. It has been mentioned by multiple members dozens of times.

 

I'm not saying he should be banned or anything like that. In the context of this thread, I'm saying this type of pattern is seen for years and everyone is just told to excuse it, ignore it and that it doesn't really constitute any real threat or harm. Only we are seeing more than any gun laws, more than any security protocol, more than any other variable we as a society have addressed, this is the one that is ignored.

 

It has been ignored by the powers that be here as well. People in this thread are asking what is wrong with our society and what must be changed. What must be changed is that when a person continually speaks as if they are some force for the greater good of society, who sees themselves and their beliefs as something outsized and not just a personal belief or opinion, and when they speak in language that declares anyone who won't accept this as being the enemy, a threat to society, someone who is causing harm to great numbers, etc. We must change our view that this is just hyperbole and a bit of bombast. It doesn't mean we jail or harm them but for now it is just ignored. It is a threat. It is a tone of menace. It is not normal or appropriate.

I just think there's a point where the costs outweigh benefits. Sometimes things just happen, we can't simply base all our policies on outlier events. Random teachers packing concealed heat might have reduced the deaths, but likely not prevented all of them. But the assailant probably would have gone out in a body bag instead of escaping.

I don't think gun control is necessarily a solution either.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/17/12 at 7:25am

 

An assault rifle obviates the need for a whole lot of training.  Handguns reguire a certain level of skill (I target shoot, so I speak from some experience) which only comes from training and practice.  Automatic weapons can compensate for lack of training which makes the arguments for keeping them legal all the more difficult to support.  They aren't practical for hunting and they aren't necessary for target shooting.  They're manufactured for one purpose only, to deploy as many bullets as they can handle.

 

Not necessarily. You are making an assumption here. You may also be assuming that someone using this type of firearm who is untrained holds an equal advantage with someone who has training (which a security guard likely would have.)

 

P.S. The rifle used here was not an "assault rifle." This is a very common mistake. Assault rifles are used by the military and have both fully automatic and burst fire modes. Rifles available to civilians have neither of these.

 

 

 

Perhaps some, but the implication also was that security personnel would not also be equally (or more) trained.

 

 

 

Well since there are no automatic weapons involved here that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Edited by MJ1970 - 12/17/12 at 8:01am

 

I agree. Don't know where that is in these cases.

 

 

 

Totally agree.

 

 

 

Correct. And...the possibility of this might have changed the shooter's calculations as well just as you've suggested presence of security might have. Assuming at least some degree of rational thinking. While the person clearly not being entirely rational and obviously suicidal creates a very difficult terrain for us to navigate. We are sometimes looking to make sense of these things when, by very definition, they make NO sense because they are quite frequently perpetrated by someone who is, at least partly, irrational, unreasonable, unstable (by normal definitions of those words.)

 

Are you actually disagreeing with what I wrote, or just using the question of my experience as a deflection because you don't like the implications of what I was saying? Please don't just project your own ignorance at me.

 

I can certainly clarify what I was saying, which is that having observed numerous casual gun owners on their rather occasional visits to firing ranges, I have noticed that, even at close range, with no distractions and at a slow, self-determined fire rate, they are very inaccurate. It takes substantial and regular practice to improve.

 

So, it is both what I have seen and what I, in common with many others, think applies to the population of gun owners as a whole. Feel free to dispute that conclusion if you disagree. But you even admitted that you would want training. What do you think that entails? A quick trip to the range to be shown how to operate the gun, where to find the takedown lever and a quick target session? Because that's the level of training that many gun owners have.

 

I said he could not make a device, not that he could not make an explosive. Care you suggest how he is going to initiate his ANFO?

 

And, FYI, ANFO is around 95% AN, 5% fuel oil. The fertilizer supplies the AN (ammonium nitrate), the fuel oil you add separately.

Okay, semi-automatics.  And I'm not making an assumption, it's a res ipsa loquitur situation.  He clearly had the requisite skill set to operate a semi-automatic "assault style" rifle, he knew how to load it, aim it and reload it.  Debating whether he would have won marksmanship trophies is pointless. 

 

Every gun owner in the US has been entertaining fantasies of how "if I had been there none of this would have happened" but the reality is that when a disturbed, well-armed person enters a zone that nobody associates with frequent random gun violence, all bets are off.

 

Fair enough. But JeffDM was claiming a great deal of training as reasoning that a security guard (or guards) would have likely been ineffective. There's not yet much evidence of a great deal of firearm training and, it is reasonable to assume that security guards who likely would be trained in firearm use would carry an advantage.

 

That was the line of discussion.

 

 

 

Now you are making an assumption.

 

 

 

This is the reality because you claim it is? I don't believe this is true at all.

 

But there's another question here that's basically being ignored. We keep hearing about the frequency of school shootings (and there have been many over the years but it's not clear whether there are substantially more now than in the past), but there is no discussion about what schools have done, are doing or should be doing and whether there's any legitimate negligence here, on the part of the school, given the past incidents of schools shootings.

 

Maybe, as JeffDM suggests, the cost to secure the places is too high and outweighs the benefits for events that are, perhaps, not that frequent. Maybe that's true. There are probably at 20 parents right now that disagree.

 

When someone sends their kid to a school there are certain fairly obvious presumptions: a) they'll get educated, b) they won't be abused, neglected or assaulted, c) they'll be generally safe. OK. Fair enough. Now some event could happen in ways that are unreasonable to guard and protect against with absolute certainty. For example natural disasters. There are also some things which are infrequent and unlikely but possible and for which measures can be taken to minimize or eliminate death and injury (e.g., fire drills, tornado drills, etc.) Not sure where school shootings fit here. Whenever one happens, you'd get the impression they were happening every day all over. But, statistically, is this more like a plane crash? It;s big news when it happens, but the probability is still extremely low?

 

 

Another thing that needs examining here is the other common thread (besides guns) of young men (teens and early 20s) that perpetrate these crimes and then suicide (not even "suicide by cop.") What's going on here? What is with this pattern? Is there something predictable here that we're just not seeing?

Edited by MJ1970 - 12/17/12 at 8:57am

 

Again the strawman is right htere. No one has said that legislation couldn't be part of the solution. The point is that ADDITIONAL legislation isn't part of the solution because this crime was not caused by an omission related to guns. If one says that means someone doesn't endorse any legislation or present legislation, those are strawmen.

 

You mention storage but there isn't anything that can prevent removal of firearms from storage once you have killed the owner. You can take their keys. You can unlock whatever is necessary. If it is biometric you can simply cut off their finger.

 

The disturbed individual got hold of three weapons by breaking laws not related to gun ownership. He murdered his mom and took her weapons. THe argument about the car is not specious because it is exactly the same. The crime wasn't that a lack of gun laws allowed him to get a gun. He committed the crime of murder and theft. You are arguing that gun laws failed in the face of murder and theft. THAT is the specious argument.

 

 

Certainly you are bright enough to understand that personal anecdotes aren't sound reasoning. He's just asking you to share what caused you to make this personal claim.

 

My own shooting experience has been quite the opposite. I've been a great shot my entire life no matter the weapon or amount of experience on it. I've won dozens of ridiculous bets from all manner of people related to my ability to hit targets and make shots. That said I don't own a gun and haven't owned one in my adult life. Most people who don't shoot well seem to not be strong enough to deal with recoil or flinch at the noise.

 

Those two things can be overcome with experience

 

Unless that omission is we don't have laws banning certain guns altogether or banning ownership of guns altogether.

 

But these would also presume those laws to be sufficiently enforceable. That's questionable. I mean we have all sorts of rules (they might even be laws in some cases) that create "gun-free zones" (malls, schools, etc.)...not to mentions laws that say it is illegal to murder someone. That clearly hasn't done anything to stop the motivated (and often suicidal) person from carrying multiple guns into these places and shooting.

 

So the argument will now become: Well then I guess we just need to get rid of the guns altogether. But it is dubious whether this will solve the real underlying problems.

 

We will certainly hear much about Australia (et al), but it's unclear whether those situations are: a) all that they seem, b) tell us what we think they tell us, and c) usefully inform what would work in the US.

Edited by MJ1970 - 12/17/12 at 10:28am

Oh look at how well they defended themselves today-

 

 

"Two police officers were fatally shot as they investigated a suspicious vehicle in the Kansas state capital, and a suspect in the killings is dead after a nearly two-hour armed standoff, authorities said Monday.

Topeka Police Chief Ronald Miller said a gunman opened fire on Cpl. David Gogian, 50, and Officer Jeff Atherly, 29, from inside the vehicle at around 6 p.m. Sunday. Miller said the man shot both officers in the head."

Oh look, a 3 year old dead after discovering a loaded gun today-

 

"A 3-year-old boy is dead after shooting himself in the head early Saturday afternoon, authorities said.

 

The boy was visiting a relative at a home in the 1500 block of Derby Lane, about four miles southeast of Guthrie. He found a loaded handgun in a bedroom, Logan County sheriff's Capt. Richard Stephens said."

~ http://newsok.com/3-year-old-dies-after-accidental-shooting-near-guthrie/article/3738015

Finally, some sense from a conservative today-

 

 "And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want."

~ Jo Scarborough