Connecticut elementary school shooting

[Sha]

Was just listening to the Chief Medical Examiner on CNN giving a report on examining the children. It's so heartbreaking... to hear of all the injuries these poor children sustained, these children who should be looking forward to Christmas right now.. I am in tears. This is so wrong.

 

[mrs jam]

This is simply incomprehensible to me. We first learned of this event when several parents came to our elementary school yesterday to pick up their children for early dismissal. Even though we're in Texas, far away from this tragedy, quite a few parents here were extremely shaken and wanted to pick up their kids. They also wanted to know how our school would be prepared to handle a situation like the one that had just happened in Connecticut.

It is deeply disturbing to me to imagine how our school would be able to respond to such a catastrophe. Our particular elementary school was built in the 1970s, and the layout and design is horrendous. Apparently, schools in the district in this time period were based on an open concept of some kind. Classrooms do not have doors, just wide open entryways, and the walls of most classrooms do not extend all the way up to the ceiling. The only locked doors that I know of are the two janitors' closets, and those stay locked at all times, so no one would be able to enter those closets to take refuge. We also do not have any windows in any of the classrooms, are there are only two ways in/out of the building. I've often thought of how dangerous the lack of exits are in case of a fire with 600 kids trying to exit from only two routes, and now it's even more unsettling to think there are only two points of evacuation if ever we have to get kids out of the school to escape a madman. I expect there will be a flurry of meetings on our campus and district next week before we go on break for the holidays.

 

[perry]

Selected Comments:

One of the benefits of establishing a civilized society is supposed to be that we don't all have to be red in tooth and claw. Not to mention the purely practical fact that, while a lot of us have hero fantasies - if I'd been there! etc. - the truth is that when it comes to fight-or-flight (not to mention general good health, response to adrenaline, hand-eye coordination, on and on and on ....) the statistical majority just aren't cut out for battle. This is why we have generally designated a given portion of our population - knights, soldiers, cops, name your epoch - to fight our battles.

---

On the other hand, we actually have data - see posts from JustGinger, HOT, Freke, and Rhea - that losing the guns results in a safer society. I'm going to trust the numbers on this.

I agree with your concept of a Civilized Society. But, are we living in one? Many people from other countries no longer think so (or are at least questioning how civilized is the US because of the continuum of these episodes) - and I believe they have a point.

What does it take to have a civilized society?

While there are many definitions of what makes a "Civilized" society, and to what standards; there is a key attribute to maintaining one.

1) No civilized society can continue to exist unless it either contains or removes from society those will not conform to some key basic principals of that society. Historically, all successful societies have either imprisoned, physically/chemically mutilated to eliminate capabilities, or executed certain classes of criminals in order to protect the society from those people.

While it is great to talk about rehabilitation; and that does work for some people. The fact of the matter is that there is a class of criminals who do not wish to be or cannot be rehabilitated.

2) No civilized society can continue to exist unless it allows people to respond with deadly force to certain situations or provocations; and enough people recognize that it is their responsibility to act when needed. This is needed because when there is a "madman" attack or some similar event the people involved are no longer - for the moment - in a civilized society; and thus they must have the freedom to act as needed to restore civility.


My personal observation is that within the US in the last 50 years (give or take) the concept of removing "Bad" people from society has become frowned upon and the "do gooders" think that everyone deserves another chance. Thus, the US is loosing ground on the first key point of what it takes to have a civilized society.

The second case has also significantly declined in the last several decades - although I believe that it may be reaching a point of swinging back.

----

Concerning the second point about a society with no guns is safer and there are numbers to back that up. No there are not. To be honest, neither are there numbers to back up the claim that a society with guns is safer either.

There are lots of studies out there that show pieces of the puzzle; and both the gun control and the pro gun groups cherry pick the studies to "demonstrate" their point. I am not sure if it was the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or the National Science Foundation (NSF) (perhaps the CBO asked the NSF) who did a study recently on the claim that gun control affected crime rate in the US (one way or the other) and even for various crimes.

Their overall conclusion after reviewing all of the studies was that there was no real evidence either way. For every isolated case or situation where it helped - there were balancing cases or situations where it hurt.

So; no there are no numbers to support that gun control works.

-----

In the end this situation comes down to several things: How do you reduce these events from happening (better mental health screening, better treatment, restricted access to children and churches, etc). Then what mechanism do we have in place when the preventive measures do not work.

I personally find it very troubling that most states have made school systems "gun free" zones - which means that School Staff cannot have weapons available. So if I wished to create mayham and kill a lot of people - a "gun free" zone is the perfect target. You have a guaranteed disarmed staff.

Anyway, I wish the entire situation were other than what happened. But, we as a society needs to re-implement the rules and actions that will restore a higher level of "civilized" society; which means among other things (in my opinion) enabling people to quickly stop these events when they start.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[Circe]

So; no there are no numbers to support that gun control works.

Perry

Er ... did you *read* the posts from our Australian contingent?

 

[Skippy123]

I have not read through these comments. When my kids were in the hospital for a few months, one of the Medical professionals took care of my children (my boys were preemies). His daughters was one of the victims in this tragedy

I went to bed crying so hard. He was such a bright light in our stay at the hospital and I am sure his children took after him and I saw pictures of him and his wife all over the news. I just can't imagine that they lived this nightmare. My heart and prayers go out to all the families and the community of CT. My heart aches for them all.

 

[treysar]

This happened 10 minutes from me. We are devastated here.

 

[Skippy123]

This happened 10 minutes from me. We are devastated here.

I am sorry Treysar.

 

[Rosebloom]

I have not read through these comments. When my kids were in the hospital for a few months, one of the Medical professionals took care of my children (my boys were preemies). His daughters was one of the victims in this tragedy

I went to bed crying so hard. He was such a bright light in our stay at the hospital and I am sure his children took after him and I saw pictures of him and his wife all over the news. I just can't imagine that they lived this nightmare. My heart and prayers go out to all the families and the community of CT. My heart aches for them all.

Oh Skippy how awful. I'm so sorry.

 

[movie zombie]

So; no there are no numbers to support that gun control works.

Perry

Er ... did you *read* the posts from our Australian contingent?

yes, and then i read this:

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

 

[Polished]

Why does a person who is intending to kill themselves anyway choose to take a whole lot of other people with them before they go? My own and only explanation is the need to draw attention to themselves - "my problem was THIS bad and no one cared - well you will now". It's an irrational position to take because people care about the innocents that have been slaughtered and know that the perpetrator's problems weren't solved in any way by his, out of all proportions, drastic action. For someone with such a mindset, I can only imagine how empowering it would be to have a gun in hand and with you in control of who and how many people you take down.

 

[TC1987]

I think it's time to start institutionalizing some of these kooks again. Most of these shooters gave some unmistakable indications that there was something seriously wrong and/or unstable about them, long before they shot people.


I also think there should be some stiff fines levied against the networks for broadcasting SO MUCH misinformation and gossip while this story was unfolding and getting sorted out! I have heard so many DIFFERENT versions and details that later proved to be completely false that I now have to go re-read the news in order to find out what actually happened. The news broadcasters, all of the big nationals, did a deplorable job.

 

[partgypsy]

Perry, I can't respond to everything you say, but part of the problem, is that not only is mental illness stigmatised, medical services for people with mental illness is woefully underfunded. Many people at risk for mental illness in addition to being hesitant to get help and be labeled, do not have access to health insurance (maybe that will change with the medical health care act) and reimbursement for psychological illnesses is often capped. And as far as seperating the bad ones from the good ones, are far as institutionalizing mentally ill, because of the defunding, pretty much all those hospitals are gone now. It may be in part to a change in treatment attitudes to humanize, (and also it's much cheaper to use drugs versus sequestrate), but alot of it was simply funding - people are not interested in funding mental health. In fact, people would rather fund prisons than invest in mental health.
Even people who are institutionalized, are often discharged before the professionals know they are truly well because no one wants them to be in the hospital beyond X number of days whatever it is. So, all those people who used to be in an institution and followed, where are they now? In your community (or in prison).

As far as prison building, we are at an all time high.Building more prisons doesn't seem to be solving the problem.

So yes, I think there should be comprehensive health care including mental health care for everyone.
And when the forefathers wrote the 2nd amendment, there was no high caliber automatic or semi automatic hand guns. I would be OK with no gun ban as long as we are only talking about the type of gun that was around when that amendment was written (single shot rifle). Then there is, possibly, time to take down the person before they kill again.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

So; no there are no numbers to support that gun control works.

Perry

Er ... did you *read* the posts from our Australian contingent?

yes, and then i read this:

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

I don't think anyone from AU is suggesting that gun control if full proof and unfailing.

I understand that the research shows that the trend of gun killings and suicides is still in decline at a same rate that it was before gun control was introduced, as i said, its never going to be perfect and you can't stop all the killings.

But you can't ignore the fact that between the years of 1984-1996 AU had 13 multiple gun killings and since our gun control was introduced, until now, there has been ONE multiple shooting, where 2 people were killed by pistols that the gunman aquired as a member of a shooting club. Guns that would have been either .38 or 9mm calibre or less with magazines that held a maximum of 10 rounds. If it weren't for those restrictions, imagine how much worse it could have been.

How many multiple killings has the US had since 1997? (I am seriously asking and would like to know) how many innocent people have died as a result?

Do I think gun control in the US is going to stop every single shooting? No. Is it going to reduce the number of mass killings that seem to have become normal? I would think so. If things are left the way they are these killings are only going to get worse. By posters own admissions, I've read that if there hadn't have been children involved, it would have been just another shooting. Part of me believes this guy went for children because he didn't want it to be 'just another shooting' he upped the crazy so people would remember him. What is the next one going to have to do so he is remembered as well? I shudder to think.

I am not opposed to people owning guns (my own father has a cabinet of rifles) but I do believe there should be tighter restrictions on how people aquire their guns, why they need them and what types they buy. Who really needs semi automatic weapons in their house in the middle of town? And more than one of them? I honestly dont understand why people feel that they need to have these types of weapons and that many of them.

Provide an amnesty period where people can hand in all unwanted licensed and unlicensed weapons for their destruction.
Introduce compulsory cooling off periods and regular training for all gun carriers.
Reduce the number and strength of the weapons people are allowed to purchase.
Introduce the need to provide just cause for wanting a firearm. In AU, self protection is not just cause, but I can see how in the US (like in MZ's case) there would be instances where it is warranted.

I don't believe gun control is the only answer to this issue, obviously mental health is another issue of great concern that needs to be adressed as well. I do know that more guns, in the hands of teachers, is not the answer.

 

[Laila619]

I have not read through these comments. When my kids were in the hospital for a few months, one of the Medical professionals took care of my children (my boys were preemies). His daughters was one of the victims in this tragedy

I went to bed crying so hard. He was such a bright light in our stay at the hospital and I am sure his children took after him and I saw pictures of him and his wife all over the news. I just can't imagine that they lived this nightmare. My heart and prayers go out to all the families and the community of CT. My heart aches for them all.

Oh, Skippy, this is just awful, I'm so sorry. I'm so sad he lost his daughter.

 

[FrekeChild]

Putting more guns in more hands is a really stupid idea. Especially in schools, I can't even fathom in elementary or middle schools, where guns are interesting to kids and they have no concept of what a gun can do, and having guns in a classroom. Seems like you're really asking for bad things to happen.

Gun regulations need to be changed, I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does. But there is no reason that any ordinary law-abiding citizen needs an assault rifle.

But this wasn't just a product of mental health and gun control. There are a variety of factors here.

 

[LaraOnline]

Thank you for posting that HOT.
Yes, the general and overwhelming consensus in the Australian community is that proximity to guns increases risks of death by guns.
The number of mass shootings that occur in Australia since gun laws were introduced is absolotely minimal.
Does it stop every single gun crime? Probably not, although it is rare to hear of a crime involving a gun in Australia these days.
Criminals stil have guns I guess.

This type of 'crazy' is not an issue of criminals with guns...this guy was not known as a criminal.
He simply did what people used to do a lot more often in Australia...go find a gun and use it.
He didn't have to tap into criminal links to get hold of a gun.
And that's the issue with guns.

Do US citizens seriously believe that if the feds launch the army against their own people, they would fight them off with guns?
Or is the citizenry planning on launching an attack on the army??

I feel confused by that whole line of reasoning.

How many pigs / bats / ducks was this mother of the crazy guy actually shooting anyway, from year to year?

 

[LaraOnline]

The shooter's mother had the guns. Why on earth would an ordinary woman possess even one gun?...........................

i am aware of the laws in AU as i am married to an AU citizen.
the rate of crime is going up in that country along with drug usage.
people are not able to defend themselves.

Actually, that is completely wrong, violent crime rates are falling in Australia.

 

[perry]

Skippy & Treysar:

I do feel for your loss, know that there will be a day when you will again see a bright future.

Circe: I did and dismissed them as cherry picking. MZ posted good information and the fact is that even in Australia there are no good numbers.

The other thing - please be very careful about trying to apply what works somewhere elsewhere when there are cultural differences.

I love my Australian and New Zealand friends: But, they also clearly have different expectations based on their different cultural expectations.

In the 1960's and early 1970's the US tried to solve lots of problems in the world via the Peace Corps and other programs by applying "how we did it in America" to a variety of 2nd and 3rd world countries. Almost all of it totally flopped because of cultural differences. Only after that did we learn that to help the local farmer we need only supply a better hand or oxen pulled plow (and not a $50,000 tractor that they cannot fuel or maintain); and maybe some better seeds, and drill and install hand pump wells (and not wells that required a diesel generator to run).

For better or worse - America has a culture that has a "justifiable violence (Cowboy Hero)" past imprinted on it and a very deep believe in the ownership of weapons on par with what the average military and police routinely use. Its been a while since I looked but I do believe there is about 1 gun per every person in the USA in private hands - and you are not going to collect them. Even if you did - the criminals could still get guns. Any solution that will work to reduce these incidents needs to recognize and deal with those cultural items. Other nations have totally different cultural backgrounds concerning guns and ownership. Thus, different things may work there.

Part Gypsy: The thing that I have been thinking on most that as a country we eliminated that resolved a lot of the issues of the past was the presence of what I call the "County Farm": When a person was marginally productive; or unemployed, etc they were sent to the county farm. There they found food and shelter, and often an opportunity for further education or training if it would help. But they also had to do chores and help raise and cook the food they ate (this was not a free ride). Such farms in the Midwest often had a variety of garden type crops (which were canned or frozen), had some dairy cows for milk and limited batches of cheese, and often had some other meet animals (chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc). Some people with limited abilities lived most of their lives on such farms. Was it a perfect life, no; but it did keep them productive at their level and gave them a safe place to be. Obviously, these people were generally not exposed to the public much (perhaps a weekend trip for limited shopping or a movie, etc).

I think all the public ones went by the wayside with the concept that everyone was to be "mainstreamed" into the general population. I think that was a mistake. I still know of a private one here in Wisconsin run by a religious organization for families that can afford to place their relatives there (they have a multiyear waiting list).

Hawaiianorangetree: Have you ever had someone try to kill you - and have the police stumble on the attempt and "accidentally" break it up but make mistakes so they could not charge the person (I am not blaming the officer and am very glad they were there)? Have you ever been stalked by someone who has made it clear to both you and the police that they intend to kill you? Have you had the Police tell you that they will respond as fast as they can - but its up to you to be alive when they get there? Now that was long ago - but to this day I have no idea if said person is still around (say in prison for other things, and gets out some day); and decides that their 20+ old grudge is sill worth finding me and killing me over.

I am more than willing to discuss self defense weapon choice and why you might want multiple guns in multiple locations with you should any of those situations come up in your life. I do hope you nor anyone else will ever have to deal with that. I just know that some people out there will.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[ksinger]

The shooter's mother had the guns. Why on earth would an ordinary woman possess even one gun?...........................

i am aware of the laws in AU as i am married to an AU citizen.
the rate of crime is going up in that country along with drug usage.
people are not able to defend themselves.

Actually, that is completely wrong, violent crime rates are falling in Australia.

And in spite of perceptions to the contrary (driven in large part by our ever-hysterical if-it-bleeds-it-leads 24-news cycle) violent crime rates have been falling for some time in the US too.

 

[LaraOnline]

Ditto MZ ... a grandma who packs heat!! ..

Hi there DF, I know you are the devil's advocate and play for laughs...but surely this sums up a huge part of the US cultural love affair with guns!

From outside the country, this attitude looks totally bizarre!

 

[Kaleigh]

Skippy , I am so sorry and about your fine PA Robbie Parker. His Emily is indeed an angel and I am at a loss fo words.

My thing?

Can we limit it to a hand gun and only one per person and a full on background check??

I think we are at a point where this is ENOUGH.

I don't want this to go by and then we forget and then the next shoooting happens and we all rinse and repeat...

Like what is it going to take??

 

[Kaleigh]

And I forgot to add, I am not for guns at all. But trying to see how this can be passed by executive order and the like. Wishful thinking. I guess we will be here again at the next shooting. I am so angry about this , because I feel we have no voice.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

The shooter's mother had the guns. Why on earth would an ordinary woman possess even one gun?...........................

i am aware of the laws in AU as i am married to an AU citizen.
the rate of crime is going up in that country along with drug usage.
people are not able to defend themselves.

Actually, that is completely wrong, violent crime rates are falling in Australia.

And in spite of perceptions to the contrary (driven in large part by our ever-hysterical if-it-bleeds-it-leads 24-news cycle) violent crime rates have been falling for some time in the US too.

But we are not talking about violent crime rates in general are we? We're talking about the multiple killings of innocent people for seemingly no reason at all.

When you look at the larger picture (violent crimes involving guns) and all of its problems and variables it is probably to hard / too huge to tackle. But if you focus on this one issue, the multiple shootings, and work on reducing those alone, it might actually be possible. Other crimes rates might go down as a side effect, they may not, but at least something will be happening to stop these mass murders of innocent people.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

I love my Australian and New Zealand friends: But, they also clearly have different expectations based on their different cultural expectations.

Hawaiianorangetree: Have you ever had someone try to kill you - and have the police stumble on the attempt and "accidentally" break it up but make mistakes so they could not charge the person (I am not blaming the officer and am very glad they were there)? Have you ever been stalked by someone who has made it clear to both you and the police that they intend to kill you? Have you had the Police tell you that they will respond as fast as they can - but its up to you to be alive when they get there? Now that was long ago - but to this day I have no idea if said person is still around (say in prison for other things, and gets out some day); and decides that their 20+ old grudge is sill worth finding me and killing me over.

I am more than willing to discuss self defense weapon choice and why you might want multiple guns in multiple locations with you should any of those situations come up in your life. I do hope you nor anyone else will ever have to deal with that. I just know that some people out there will.

Have a great day,

Perry

Hi Perry

To answer your question, I guess the closest I have come to someone wanting to kill me is watching my father hold a rifle to my mothers head and tell her he was going to kill her. Not the same I know, but I guess this has influenced my views on the subject.

I understand people's need for wanting to protect themselves in that one off scenario if it should ever happen, but my concern is the potential destruction that could happen with all of those weapons the other 99% of the time. I personally, keep a small baseball bat close by for the nights when I am alone. I haven't had to use it yet, and hope that I never have to and I know at there is no potential for someone to steal it and go on a mass killing spree.

I am curious at why you thought I was cherry picking facts and hiding others. What exactly was a hiding? That suicide and gun related crime has been decreasing at a steady rate, as it was before the gun control? I could be missing something as I hadn't read all of the wiki articles (too hard on the iPhone) so please share what you meant.

 

[hawaiianorangetree]

Thank you for posting that HOT.
Yes, the general and overwhelming consensus in the Australian community is that proximity to guns increases risks of death by guns.
The number of mass shootings that occur in Australia since gun laws were introduced is absolotely minimal.
Does it stop every single gun crime? Probably not, although it is rare to hear of a crime involving a gun in Australia these days.
Criminals stil have guns I guess.

This type of 'crazy' is not an issue of criminals with guns...this guy was not known as a criminal.
He simply did what people used to do a lot more often in Australia...go find a gun and use it.
He didn't have to tap into criminal links to get hold of a gun.
And that's the issue with guns.

Do US citizens seriously believe that if the feds launch the army against their own people, they would fight them off with guns?
Or is the citizenry planning on launching an attack on the army??

I feel confused by that whole line of reasoning.

How many pigs / bats / ducks was this mother of the crazy guy actually shooting anyway, from year to year?

+1

You are far more eloquent than I am Lara.

 

[Circe]

Stepping aside from any debate ... guys, I am so terribly sorry so many of us have or are dealing with gun violence, directly or tangentially.

Looking at the sidebar, which links automatically to similar topics from the past, just depresses me further.

 

[perry]

Hi Perry

I am curious at why you thought I was cherry picking facts and hiding others. What exactly was a hiding? That suicide and gun related crime has been decreasing at a steady rate, as it was before the gun control? I could be missing something as I hadn't read all of the wiki articles (too hard on the iPhone) so please share what you meant.

Hawaiianorangetree:

I do not accuse you of intentionally cherry picking. The site that presents that study as the answer did the cherry picking for you (and anyone else who looks at their site). The site host either know - or should know - that the study has been discredited and that better studies exist (they likely do not like the conclusions of the better studies).

A very similar thing is done by both the "pro gun" and the "anti gun" sites and organizations in the US. These organizations cherry pick the studies out there and present only the ones that support their view. Anyone who thus clicks on their site is presented with "proof" that their side is right.

Even though I found myself needing weapons for self defense several decades ago; I was bothered by the obvious bias and "cherry picking" done by both sides in the US. That is why I was so glad when a reputable organization looked at all the studies relating to gun control and gun carry and came to a conclusion (that their is no evidence in the studies that gun control prevents crime nor that lack of gun control --i.e. easy gun carry laws prevent crime; that overall the studies done over the last several decades were a wash on the overall effect).

----

Another comment concerning the Australian example and the claim that it appears that the strict gun control laws have prevented mass shootings. Australia never had a history of mass shootings. The laws were passed after one mass shooting incident; which could well be a random event. Thus, there is no way to say the new law worked because there is no pattern to judge - unless you say no mass shootings for many years - an isolated case - no mass shootings for many years.

As for the rest - crime rates had already been falling; and there appears to be no major impact.

I again refer people to the Norway mass shooting in 2011: 66 largely children dead and 110 injured. Norway has some of the strictest gun laws and gun owner screenings around. The assailant spent years legally building up his weapons.

This is a complicated issue with many factors. But, one fact is that whatever wishful thinking by some people; the guns in the American Society are not going to vanish. It is unlikely that most people would even turn in their guns (or all of their guns) even if the government tried to order that (and my next post will get into why). Not to mention that criminals will always find a way to get guns.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[JaneSmith]

And now someone walks into a hospital and starts shooting.
http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Suspect-killed-in-shooting-at-St-Vincents-Hospital/8pYa9a7o-EKtx0drjCn6Tg.cspx

 

[perry]

Thank you for posting that HOT.

Do US citizens seriously believe that if the feds launch the army against their own people, they would fight them off with guns?
Or is the citizenry planning on launching an attack on the army??

I feel confused by that whole line of reasoning.

LaraOnline:

Not exactly, but close.

The United States of America was formed because the armed citizenry was able to band together and, with a little help from the French, defeat the British Army and establishing our own country subject to our own rules. The people who drafted the original Articles of Confederation, and the current Constitution later formed a government where the people hold the power - and only grant enough power to the elected representatives and courts to do what was necessary to run the country (the people limit the power the governernment has).

The Federal Government was actually originally prohibited from having a standing army - and had to work by mobilizing militias (groups of armed citizens - who supplied their own arms).

The concept that an armed citizenship would prevent the government from becoming tyrants is well documented in the original debates.

Yes, there is a good chunk of Americans who feel that they need to be armed in order to over-throw the government if necessary to prevent a dictatorship from forming (and may I suggest that it has prevented certain abuses).

Concerning our Army (and Navy, Air force, Marines, Coast Guard). When it was decided that indeed the country needed a standing army (military); other provisions were put into place to protect the people.

1) When you enlist into the US Military as either an enlisted person or an officer the oath you take is to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is not to defend the office holders in government.

2) The standing army is specifically prohibited from acting against the people of the United States within the United States. Thus, any orders to do so can be legally refused by any officer and enlisted person (and mass defections would likely occur).

When I enlisted in the Navy we did in fact have a class on what the Oath meant and how we could not be used to act within the boundaries of the US against the people of the US. I suspect that those classes are still part of Boot Camp and Officer Training.

If the US Government were to go so astray as to really tick off a good chunk of the population - it is actually possible for an armed public uprising and for the Army (Air Force, Marines, Navy, etc) to just stand by and watch. Truth be told another Constitutional Convention would more likely be called instead of a public uprising.

But people who are trying to understand the US Culture needs to understand that their is in fact a historical - and constitutional case - for having an armed population that could in fact overthrow the government if needed to prevent abuses of power. That the power in this country actually rest with the people - and that the people grant limited rights to government.

This is why you would never get a good portion of the population to turn their guns in - such a request would actually be seen as a clear example of a government going too far.

I am well aware that the vast majority of other countries constitution place the base power in the government - and not with the people (I am not sure if the US is unique in its approach on who holds the power; but it is a rare approach in the world).

Hope that helps people understand,

Perry

 

[cellardoor433]

Thank you for posting that HOT.

Do US citizens seriously believe that if the feds launch the army against their own people, they would fight them off with guns?
Or is the citizenry planning on launching an attack on the army??

I feel confused by that whole line of reasoning.

LaraOnline:

Not exactly, but close.
the original debates.

Yes, there is a good chunk of Americans who feel that they need to be armed in order to over-throw the government if necessary to prevent a dictatorship from forming (and may I suggest that it has prevented certain abuses).


But people who are trying to understand the US Culture needs to understand that their is in fact a historical - and constitutional case - for having an armed population that could in fact overthrow the government if needed to prevent abuses of power. That the power in this country actually rest with the people - and that the people grant limited rights to government.

Hope that helps people understand,

Perry

With all due respect, that line about USA Culture and the American Constitution have become grossly abused and misused by both the firearms industry and their beneficiaries (namely the NRA). The gunman reportedly used a rifle, a Glock, and a Sig Sauer. The last two are very powerful handguns which he also topped with high impact bullets. Why are these high power handguns and bullets being sold to regular citizens?

And again, my apologies. Being a Taiwanese Australian with one highly militarised cultural background combined with another comparatively peaceful one, I just cannot fathom how citizens, without formal military discipline and training, are supposed to defend their motherland against - what? Zombie Apocalypse? Nuclar Warfare (sure, a few Glocks will stop that!)? Global Warming? Besides, the Constitution was written in a historical context where there were groups of militia instead of national military forces. The excuse of "Culture" - well, culture is malleable and can be changed overtime. It is not permanent. There used to be a time where people of different race are not allowed to marry, or that a woman cannot vote or inherit properties.

I am sure someone will ask: What about the Swiss? Ok, granted that every adult Swiss must fulfull their national service and keep their firearms, BUT this is because Switzerland has NO military. It is an isolated case study and can't be compared to the USA.

At the end of the day, the lack of gun regulation in USA is about money and profit. The less regulation means more firearms sold.

Let's not overlook how much NRA receives, and how much it spends lobbying for its cause.

There is also the difficult question to answer: Are Americans willing to change their "cultural" (I use quote marks because I am sure not all American share the same belief) values and re-interpret the Constitution, or are they complacent for things to be business as usual, and for more children to die?