Connecticut elementary school shooting

[AGBF]

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 do not think the answer is this simple. One cannot simply institutionalize someone because one suspects he may be a threat in the future. Also: in a time when no one wants taxes raised, no one is going to pay the costs of increased mental health care. The reason that state hospitals were closed and that less care was provided in local communities was that no one wanted to pay the cost of mental health care.

Nonetheless, your comment is especially ironic to someone from Connecticut who grew up associating the word, "Newtown" not with the so-called lovely, bucolic, safe community described over and over again on the television news, but with the grim, frightening buildings of the old Fairfield Hills Hospital. It was an absolutely enormous state psychiatric hospital that was in operation for most of my life. The link I am attaching to YouTube says that it closed in 1995, but by then it must have been almost totally empty. Patients were being de-institutionalized into the local communities in large numbers in Connecticut by the early 1980's.

This is what I always associated with Newtown:

Fairfield Hills Hospital in Newtown, CT...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8yZtK65EAE

Deb/AGBF

 

[Loves Vintage]

The sad truth is that nothing will change. People say enough is enough. There must be tighter gun control laws. But, nothing will change. And, sadly, this WILL happen again.

Americans seem to be exceptionally good at forgetting this sort of thing. And, we ARE desensitized to random shootings at this point. If only 2 people get shot in a mall, we barely notice. Six people killed in a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin got barely a notice. Yes, it was on the news, but no one discussed it at my work, it wasn't mentioned on any of the forums I visit, no one called to tell me they were devastated. Because they were not. It's the new normal, and far enough away, and remote enough, and random enough, that it was barely noticed. Only six lives taken there.

And, people in this country love their guns. They hold onto their semi-automatic weapons tightly. Except when they are safely locked away in their gun safes. Away from their children, they all proudly tell me when I ask. Give it a few days, and we will surely hear that this mother had her guns "safely locked away" as well.

Give it few more days, maybe a few weeks, and we will forget. Until it happens again.

Yes, people who own guns are evil (and probably stupid and selfish). Suspect and potential killers all.

I understand that emotions are running high right now, but this is not helpful and does not add to a genuine dialogue.

We need to discuss sensible and EFFECTIVE gun control measures, have a clear-eyed vision of the practical details of how those measures can be implemented, and how much it will cost in dollars and resources, not just knee-jerk react. We desperately need to discuss the culture and conditions (we've been in a state of war for over a decade now, and the economy is struggling, to name but a few issues) that are creating these overwhelmingly unhinged, intelligent, young white males with some sort of grudge and a penchant for violence. And we need to make a genuine commitment to improving access to mental health services. Lumping all gun owners together as A)THE PROBLEM and B) as unwilling to entertain sensible restrictions, is counterproductive.

While I'm saddened as everyone else by this tragedy, being totally devastated by every tragedy that is on the news on any given day, (including those on the other side of the globe, which of course we get to hear of in real time now also), and allowing ourselves to feel every tragedy as deeply as those to whom they are happening, we risk BECOMING our own tragedy of depression. I was 8 blocks from the Murrah Building in '95, and while we appreciated the solid emotional support of the country, we didn't expect people outside the community to feel the pain to the depth that we did. I wouldn't inflict that level of pain on anyone.

I've seen people become nearly hysterical in this forum about things happening on the other side of the globe - things beyond their reach or influence, and I'm like....WHY? At the end of the day have you done anything constructive by being hysterical or devastated, except ruining your own state of existence? By all means, if it galvanizes you to action, then great, but don't try to put some guilt trip on people who don't react exactly like you do.

Re: the bold, did I say that?

Re: the remainder of your post, I think perhaps I do not use enough words when I post. I did not intend to say how people should react. I mean, I am apparently as de-sensitized as everyone else. I paid no attention at all to the mall shooting from earlier this week. I saw a post early in the day about the school shooting (on another forum) and didn't even look at the thread. Another school shooting. So, I'm not saying that people should behave in any specific way. Just saying in the past few years, after one of these events, people are always calling for change, but it doesn't happen.

Perhaps not. But it is not much of a stretch, given your attitude about people "loving" their guns or "clinging tightly to their semi-automatic weapons", and your clear suspicion that the responsible gun owners that you know - those who do lock their guns up, still are suspect and not doing enough. Makes legal gun owners as a group sound more than a bit unhinged and unreasonable. Hyperbole for hyperbole, yes? Perhaps not all that helpful either, but I confess I do get tired of this persistent stereotype (this is NOT the first gun discussion on here by far) on a board that froths mightily at even the merest hint of other kinds of stereotypes.

Back to the subject though, I would like to know what the people proposing restrictions, want. A total ban of all firearms? Partial? Full autos? Semi-autos? Handguns? Sales of military calibers? What? Let's get down to brass tacks. Blanket, blowsy proclamations about how "we need tougher gun laws" are pretty useless, IMO. Connecticut, by all accounts, already has some of the most restrictive laws in the country (notice how quickly the news was able to report that the mother had 4 and the father had 2 legally registered weapons - 3 of which appeared to be legacy guns - the Henry repeater, the Enfield and the shotgun). Clearly, in this case, that didn't stop the violence.

Ah, well, yes, I will give you that re: my comments. Not my hobby, but I do have close personal friends (all co-workers, actually) who talk to me a lot about their guns. From what they tell me, they are responsible with their guns. But, I am sure this woman was responsible too. I am SURE those guns WERE locked up. So what happened? In her case, yes, not enough. Some people are more careful than others.

Connecticut has the most restrictive gun laws? I will have to look that up to see in what sense they are the most restrictive. No open carry, that's for sure! But, I don't think that gets us very much, does it? There were reports yesterday that the CT gunman tried to buy a rifle at Dick's Sporting Goods days before the shooting, but was denied, I assume based on age (have to be 21?). (Looks unclear whether THAT report was accurate.) But, if it was accurate, not a big accomplishment in this case.

I wish I could answer your question re: what type of controls would be preferable; however, I will admit that I am just not familiar with the different types of guns you listed. Certainly, it seems that semi-automatic weapons are the gun of choice for the gunmen in each of these recent cases. (Which one did the gunman in CT use: http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/XM-15.asp?) Perry, maybe you can tell us, which one was it? How much ammo do they hold? How many bullets per second? I read that gun enthusiasts like these for clay shooting because they don't have to stop and re-load. That can't be true though. I couldn't imagine people use guns like that for shooting clay. Do they???? So, at a minimum, those types of guns, I think should go. I don't know what an assault rifle is, but it doesn't sound like something people would need to protect their homes. Karen mentioned automatic weapons. Well, if pressed, I would have guessed automatic weapons were not legal at all. They are? I expose my ignorance, yes. I tried to do some research this morning, but frankly, I do not have the heart for it right now. Certainly, I do not think a total ban would work in the US.

In any event, and I have said this before on here, I do NOT think a lot of people would give up their guns willingly. I think any gun restrictions that result in people having to turn over any weapons to the government (even if it is just an automatic weapon, semi-automatic, etc., not just a simple handgun) will result in a lot of people flipping out and shootin' it up and a whole lot more people simply not turning them in. No, I do not mean to say that all gun owners are crazy, but there are a lot of people out there who fear the government (and yes, are clinging to their guns), and I do think something like this would tip their scales toward madness.

 

[zoebartlett]

I don't understand why reporters were allowed to speak to minors about what they heard and/or saw. I mean, yes, know it's because they were there and they can provide details, but it seems really inappropriate. I don't understand why parents would allow that. Let these children process this with family and professionals (teachers, guidance counselors, therapists), not the media.

 

[zoebartlett]

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.

I completely agree, Freke.

 

[ksinger]

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.

I completely agree, Freke.

About arming teachers in schools, here is my husband's verbatim response (from another forum) to someone who proposed that very thing:

" [name], I was in the gun business for about 15 years and have been in the teaching business for close to the same. From the inside of both industries, that is the stupidest idea I've heard since abstinence only. The availability of the weapons will make the shootings MORE likely and the training costs would be far more than justified. If you won't even provide the funding for effin' textbooks, do you really think that the money for effective shoot/don't shoot training will be there?"

 

[mayerling]

I (sort of) get owning a hunting rifle. But why would anyone need to own semi-automatics, magnums, etc? What is the use of a semi-automatic other than mass killing?

 

[zoebartlett]

Good post (and point from your husband), Ksinger.

 

[ruby59]

Sorry if this was asked before. I do not have the heart to go through every post, and I do not want to get into the legality of owning guns.

However, in this situation - from what I am hearing on the news, the mother knew that her son had mental/emotional problems. That is why she quit her job recently, so she could be with him.

What is your opinion of having guns in the home when an unstable person lives there? Obviously, locking them up was not sufficient in this case.

 

[ksinger]

Good post (and point from your husband), Ksinger.

Thanks Zoe. I truly wish I could get him on here for a real discussion - he can talk much faster than I can type or paraphrase. You might be surprised, given our experience and background, that we are not gun-totin' NRA ideologues. We favor restrictions, it's just that he can tell you - from an inside perspective and even somewhat from a law-enforcement standpoint (having dealt one-on-one with them for many years) - the difficulties involved in making various restrictions actually work. It is a far more complex issue than simply banning all guns (which several on here have openly stated they wish would happen), and yes there are constitutional issues involved. Some here understand that, and some, quite clearly, do not.

Both of us focus less on the tool, than questioning WHY? Here is another of his posts in a thread talking about the mental health side of this issue:

A really interesting observation (re: tribal societies and mental issues) that may have a lot of relevance. As our cities get bigger, people can't relate to being a part of too large a system ("I feel like a number") and search for a smaller social unit to belong to. For the people who can't find a "tribe", the feelings of hopelessness and isolation grow. Sometimes into violence. As neighborhood and small social units break down due to mobility, electronic communication and poverty, we may see more of this.

My wife and I were discussing why it's middle class kids that seem to be doing these horrors and came to the conclusion that these are the kids that have been told that the world is their oyster but peak out to find that it's much harsher than they were told. Without the coping skills of dealing with adversity that the poor or country kids have had, the situation can break those susceptible. I see the milder form of kids that have the brains to succeed but get to college and can't handle the pressures. One of my brightest kids in the last couple of years is loading lumber after flunking out of a local university.

Another question that came up in our discussion, what is it about the American culture that makes us want to take innocent lives in our path to suicide?"

 

[Mayk]

Every edge feels raw and a sadness hangs on me like a wet blanket. I'm late to post but my heart is so heavy for this tragic loss of so many innocent angels and their teachers. Prayers and tears for the community of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

May God hold you in his arms and give you the strength to move forward.

 

[lulu]

http://gawker.com/5968818?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

This is an excellent article written by the mother of a a mentally ill violent adolescent that gives some insight into the breakdown in our system.

 

[perry]

Loves Vintage:

I have not paid that much attention to which specific guns were used - and the few press releases I have seen have conflicting information.

But lets discuss in general the types and capabilities (and history) of the kinds of guns available.

First item - in no case is a discussion of bullets per minute or second relevant here. Firing rate is only a term that can effectively applied to fully automated weapons (machine guns). While there are in fact many thousands of legal machine guns in the US (and likely tens of thousands); obtaining one is a costly affair - and they are costly to use even for target shooting. In my memory of various shooting events of the last several decades within the US I think there was only one event with a machine gun.

The guns most commonly used are "semi-automatic" in that you have to individually release and pull the trigger to fire a single shot.

These guns all have either internal storage of multiple rounds or removable magazines that contain multiple rounds. These guns all automatically eject the spent casing and load the next available round based on recoil or gas pressure from the just fired round.

The predecessor to these guns was the lever action which contained internal storage or a magazine and cycled out the spent cartridge and loaded the next available round via mechanical actuation of a lever. Before that is the bolt action which requires you to manually operate a bolt (with several movements) to eject the spent casing and load the next round.

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols were first developed before 1850's (I believe the currently recognized "first" is 1945 in Germany - although there is debate on that) and were generally available to the public in reliable forms by the early 1900's.

With these guns you can fire just about as fast as you can return the gun to target after the recoil and pull the trigger again.

Functionally, not a lot has changed since the 1903 Winchester (blowback operation - internal tubular 10 round magazine) and 1906 Remington Auto-Loading Repeating Rifle (recoil operated - 5 Round detachable Magazine) and the John Browning M1911 45 Caliber Automatic Pistol (recoil operated - 7 round detachable magazine). European gun makers have similar models available.

Larger detachable magazines where made available pre-WW1 for the most popular guns such as for the Remington Auto-Loading Rifles and M1911 Pistol. However, it only takes a few seconds to change a magazine on gun and you can easily carry many magazines.

For those who want to claim that the problem is due to "modern powerful" guns. That is just not true (and the 45ACP pistol was known as "the" - "man-stopper" and only recently exceeded in effectiveness by modern cartridges) These same kinds of guns have been in the general population hands for over 100 years in very reliable weapons.

The US Military adopted use of semi-automatic guns (rifles and pistols) between WW1 and WW2 and the US market was flooded with now lower cost guns because they were being mass produced for the Military. Surplus rifles and pistols in the millions, of many makes and countries, flooded the worldwide market after WWII and several wars since then before fully automatic weapons became standard issue in the militaries (1960's).

My dad had a suitable collection of just such guns as long as I remember and I was being taught how to safely use them by the mid 1960's. I note that even back then there were isolated reports of someone killing a lot of people with guns (I recall one case from that time period which involved a young man who used his bolt action target 22 rifle to kill about 10 people). I clearly had available to me as a teenage enough guns and magazines to have over 100 rounds available for rapid use.

What has changed since then: 3 things:

1) The militaries found that going to smaller lighter cartridges was more effective for military weapons. Thus much smaller bullets became standard - and more could fit into essentially the same size magazine (although you would still have to change magazines frequently). Hence the popularity of 223 versus the old 308 rifle cartridge.

2) Gaston Glock (I thank him very much for this - and all of you should too) was the first person to successfully solve a problem that 'ALL" common rifles and pistols had (single shot, bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic). That was that the "Safety" on them was not that safe. It prevented you from pulling the trigger - but it did not prevent the gun from going off if it was jarred and a round was in the chamber. Standard hunter safety course always taught that if you were going to go over a fence or an obsticle - or going to lean your gun against a tree for a while - unload it because if it fell over or you dropped it there was a chance it could go off (which routinely happened). Lots of people got shot when they dropped their pistols or knocked over their rifles even when the safety was on (rarely the gun holder). Gaston Glock was the first person who came up with a successful gun safety device that prevented the gun from going off unless the trigger was pulled. Drop it, run over it with a truck, a tank, etc, etc, etc its safety system prevents accidental discharge of the gun. Countless lives have actually been saved; and now most other Mfrs have adopted a similar safety system (especially since Gastons original patents have expired).

One of the reasons that Glock pistols became so popular was because of this safety system (its the reason I purchased this brand in the 1990's). Of course, its also a reliable gun.

All other changes are in fact relatively minor since 100 years ago. Yes, modern materials have replaced the old materials (plastic frames, hard coatings vs bluing, etc). With the design of new handguns someone figured out that you could design it such that it held a larger capacity magazine versus having to use a long after-market magazine. The cartridge designers finally found a sweet spot for effectiveness in a smaller cartridge than the 45ACP (40 S&W). But, 45ACP is still probably the 3rd most popular pistol cartridge out there (9 mm and 40 S&W are more popular).

Oh - and the politicians invented the term "Assault Rifle or Weapon" to describe civilian semi-automatic rifles with larger magazines than sold with guns produced up to WWII (even though large capacity magazines existed as after market accessories back then too).

Did your grandfather or father own an "Assault Rifle" by the current political definition? It would not surprise me if the answer was "yes."


So what guns did this shooter have: Reports says 1 Bushman 223 semi-automatic rifle, and several semi-automatic pistols from various companies. The bushman semi-automatic rifle probably had a 20 - 30 round magazine (I have not looked it up) I suspect that up to 50 round magazines are likely available as an aftermarket accessory (I have not looked it up). The semi-automatic pistols: Magazine would likely hold 11 - 15 rounds depending on caliber and manufacturer. Aftermarket magazines are commonly available for most modern semi-automatic pistols that hold 30 rounds (and I have seen some 50 round magazines advertised - no idea if they are reliable or not). I do not follow "guns" regularly - but I do recall once seeing a discussion by someone who had planned on developing a several hundred round "drum" magazine for some of the Glock pistols. No idea if it ever happened.

I have no idea if he had any of the larger after market magazines. Some of the recent shooting incidents have used them - some have not. Its not hard to carry a half dozen normal sized magazines and change them as needed (in a few seconds).

But the big thing I want everyone to understand - and why I wrote the history. You all could have legally acquired and carried a similar arsenal and adequate spare magazines 100 years ago to do what was just done. By 80 years ago large capacity magazines existed similar in size to the modern magazines.

Edited to add:

So the real question is what has changed in society such that we now have these shootings commonly occurring - and what can we do minimize them. Our fathers and grandfathers had available the same kinds of weapons with similar capabilities. Why did they not go on such rampages (and talk about veterans with "Shell shock" or "battle fatigue" - have you ever talked with a WWII or Korean War Vet?).


Have a great day,

Perry

 

[partgypsy]

Yeah, I guess there is no way to regulate guns and we should just arm everyone, including the children, and let the best shooter win...

 

[AGBF]

http://gawker.com/5968818?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

This is an excellent article written by the mother of a a mentally ill violent adolescent that gives some insight into the breakdown in our system.

Good article. Her son and my daughter have some things in common. There is no institution in which to place people when they have problems like those of these children nowadays. There are only prisons if they break the laws, and the idea of putting a vulnerable, mentally ill young person who cries all night if s/he is even left alone in a hospital room into prison is heartbreaking. There should be longterm hospitalization available for people before they commit heinous crimes. Hospitalization in a comforting, medical environment where treatment is available. The problem, as I posted earlier, is that no one wants to pay for it. My daughter was told that several days of one of her psychiatric hospital stays would not be paid for by the insurance company...and the "funny" thing was that as soon as she was released she had to be rehospitalized. What if she had not spent those "extra days" we had to fight over in the hospital? How soon would it have been, then, before she had to be rehospitalized?

Deb/AGBF

 

[perry]

Ksinger:

In my opinion you are asking the right kind of questions.

How do we as a society regroup and get to where we prevent more of these events from happening and also more quickly stop them when they start.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[movie zombie]

lulu, i've read that blog. its heartbreaking.
no matter how good a parent one is, a child's brain may be wired in such a way that s/he will never fit into society.
this mother was lucky in that she had the resources to be able to get employment with medical insurance that covers mental health issues. many are not in this position.
until we as a society understand that the way to handle things is before there is a "situation" and are willing to invest our tax $ into providing assistance/help, we will continue to have these "situations" regardless of whether there is a gun involved or not. it is a sad sad sad irony that many that complain the most re gun deaths are the same individuals that complain about having to pay taxes to help someone else.

as noted in the link i provided re AU and per info in Perry's posts, this country is unique re our Constitution and the 2A. the brits made sure that none of their colonies would ever have the opportunity to do what we did. in this they were vigilent. the idea that we can trust our government to not fire on a public exercising its rights under the Constitution were more than dispelled in 1932 when McArthur fired on vets and burned their encampment in dc to the ground....and who can forget the shooting at Kent State?

i recall an interview with angela davis talking about growing up in alabama......her family was not attacked by the KKK because they knew her family had a gun/s and would fire back. i've heard another interview re a gentleman growing up black in florida: same story. cowards to not attack people armed to protect themselves. cowards do attack unarmed people. and we've seen that so many many times, especially recently.

for the record: i do not have a CCW nor do i illegally carry. this puts me at a disadvantage but it is the price i pay in this society. however, at home and on my property? yes, i am prepared to protect my life....not my things, but my life. i am not trained to get a CCW nor would the sheriff in this county issue me one despite being supportive of my being armed at home.

i do not expect anyone in another country to understand any of this....and truthfully my AU hubby doesn't entirely "get" it either.
for another perspective see:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/about.htm

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Organization

haters love to hate and to think that it couldn't happen now is ignoring the police convicted for murder they committed during hurricane katrina, rwanda, serbia, northern ireland, skinheads, etc.

one has to look to Switzerland to get a real look at effective "gun control":

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

yet it is a country that does not go to war nor have the problems we have in this country. of course, they are a "socialized" country....and we are told that socialism is evil, right?


nothing changes the fact that a mad man has done a horrible thing. the question is will we as a society try and do more than a quick fix bandage with more gun control or look deeper within ourselves and be willing to acknowledge that we are failing re mental health and be willing to pick up the tab to correct that failing? in the blog post, this kid has a chance because he has some resources. but his willingness to use any instrument at hand to cause harm is evident. we cannot ban cars, knives, ropes, gas cans, etc in the hope of stopping the deranged from killing. the reality is more likely that he will remain a threat to society. are we prepared to create facilities in which to house such individuals? in the past so many were falsely locked up.....are we running the risk of going down that road again?

lots of questions, no easy answers or fixes.

 

[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 do not think the answer is this simple. One cannot simply institutionalize someone because one suspects he may be a threat in the future. Also: in a time when no one wants taxes raised, no one is going to pay the costs of increased mental health care. The reason that state hospitals were closed and that less care was provided in local communities was that no one wanted to pay the cost of mental health care.

Nonetheless, your comment is especially ironic to someone from Connecticut who grew up associating the word, "Newtown" not with the so-called lovely, bucolic, safe community described over and over again on the television news, but with the grim, frightening buildings of the old Fairfield Hills Hospital. ...

Deb/AGBF

Yeah, I know all of that. And I really don't care. The deviate and defective and violent and dangerous should not be allowed to ruin life for the rest of us normal people. They can NEVER be reprogrammed or mainstreamed and will always be a hazard to others. If you can't euthanize them, at least incarcerate them. I have firsthand experience with such a child, because my brother and SIL adopted one. After about 9 years of constant theatrics and property damage, and arson fires, he tried to kill my SIL, first with a knife, then by grabbing the steering wheel and forcing their car head-on into oncoming Interstate traffic. He landed in the juvie system, of course. Then was in foster home a while, then became and adult and unfortunately has been turned loose on the public. He broke into someone's townhouse and started a fire there. My bro and SIL have a restraining order and are also good friends with the local cops who are keeping tabs on kid's movements. If he ever goes near my parents or me again, it will be his last day on Earth.

 

[marym]

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.

Thank you and well said, HOT....I agree with you 1000%!!!

 

[FrekeChild]

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 do not think the answer is this simple. One cannot simply institutionalize someone because one suspects he may be a threat in the future. Also: in a time when no one wants taxes raised, no one is going to pay the costs of increased mental health care. The reason that state hospitals were closed and that less care was provided in local communities was that no one wanted to pay the cost of mental health care.

Nonetheless, your comment is especially ironic to someone from Connecticut who grew up associating the word, "Newtown" not with the so-called lovely, bucolic, safe community described over and over again on the television news, but with the grim, frightening buildings of the old Fairfield Hills Hospital. ...

Deb/AGBF

Yeah, I know all of that. And I really don't care. The deviate and defective and violent and dangerous should not be allowed to ruin life for the rest of us normal people. They can NEVER be reprogrammed or mainstreamed and will always be a hazard to others. If you can't euthanize them, at least incarcerate them. I have firsthand experience with such a child, because my brother and SIL adopted one. After about 9 years of constant theatrics and property damage, and arson fires, he tried to kill my SIL, first with a knife, then by grabbing the steering wheel and forcing their car head-on into oncoming Interstate traffic. He landed in the juvie system, of course. Then was in foster home a while, then became and adult and unfortunately has been turned loose on the public. He broke into someone's townhouse and started a fire there. My bro and SIL have a restraining order and are also good friends with the local cops who are keeping tabs on kid's movements. If he ever goes near my parents or me again, it will be his last day on Earth.

Be that as it may, you're not helping fix an already broken prison system by sticking more and more people in it. Prisons area already stuffed to the gills with actual perpetrators, sticking "maybe" perpetrators in there with them fixes absolutely nothing. In fact it puts more strain on already huge problem in the prison system.

I think that getting rid of mental health institutions was a travesty. There are people out on the streets who are a threat to themselves and/or other people in one way or another, and they shouldn't be out there on the streets. But no one wants to have taxes raised to help house these people and possibly protect their communities from potentially dangerous people.

Instead we have people who want to arm everyone to their teeth with guns as a protective measure. And they seem to be the same people who don't want taxes raised...for any reason, much less to help treat those citizens who have mental health problems.

 

[Sha]

I don't understand why reporters were allowed to speak to minors about what they heard and/or saw. I mean, yes, know it's because they were there and they can provide details, but it seems really inappropriate. I don't understand why parents would allow that. Let these children process this with family and professionals (teachers, guidance counselors, therapists), not the media.

Agreed - I thought this was inappropriate too.

Ditto Freke and others with similar sentiments as well.

 

[AGBF]

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 do not think the answer is this simple. One cannot simply institutionalize someone because one suspects he may be a threat in the future. Also: in a time when no one wants taxes raised, no one is going to pay the costs of increased mental health care. The reason that state hospitals were closed and that less care was provided in local communities was that no one wanted to pay the cost of mental health care.

Yeah, I know all of that. And I really don't care. The deviate and defective and violent and dangerous should not be allowed to ruin life for the rest of us normal people. They can NEVER be reprogrammed or mainstreamed and will always be a hazard to others. If you can't euthanize them, at least incarcerate them.

I have firsthand experience with such a child, because my brother and SIL adopted one. After about 9 years of constant theatrics and property damage, and arson fires, he tried to kill my SIL, first with a knife, then by grabbing the steering wheel and forcing their car head-on into oncoming Interstate traffic. He landed in the juvie system, of course. Then was in foster home a while, then became and adult and unfortunately has been turned loose on the public. He broke into someone's townhouse and started a fire there. My bro and SIL have a restraining order and are also good friends with the local cops who are keeping tabs on kid's movements.

If he ever goes near my parents or me again, it will be his last day on Earth.

You have spoken about your own choices above. You do not care about whether society finds an answer to a problem. You do not care if people with certain illnesses can be cured. That does not mean that no one else can care.

I do not know if there is really evil on earth. When I have read about people who get pleasure from torturing animals at early age and go on to torturing and killing people, I have wondered if enjoyment of cruelty, true sadism which goes beyond sociopathy, is evil or pathology. I know as a mother that I saw a peach of a child, one who cried for a little skunk who had no friends, become overcome by bipolar illness and become violent in early teens. She never drew a knife or set a fire. She never harmed an animal or any other living thing. But she cannot control herself. She is not the same person at all. Her illness robbed her of everything. A student who got all A's and could play any musical instrument-she was a wonderful cellist-could not concentrate at all in school or practice her instruments at all. I don't want her euthanized; I want her tenderly loved and protected, helped and nurtured...until there is a cure for what torments her. Inside she is the beautiful child who cried for the little skunk.

Deb/AGBF

 

[perry]

FrekeChild:

I agree with you on both the need to be able to institutionalize those mentally unstable that they are a danger to themselves, loved ones, and society. These would not be prisons either as most of these people can indeed function on a limited bases.. As I previously mentioned I would like to see the "County Farms" of the past come back. It may not be much of a modern life - but let them at least raise and cook their own food (or most of it) - and it also provides animals that they may be able to relate to (some people just get along better with animals than people). Not that costly either.

I also agree that Prison is not the answer either - and I think our current definitions on a lot of "crimes" and and why and how people are jailed and for what reasons is often "stupid." We have imprisoned something like 3 times of the population than we did 50 years ago, and I don't see any great improvement. In fact - our modern prisons seem to be breeding grounds for more competent and violent criminals. Long ago I was involved in several debates/discussions in "Around the world" on crimes/imprisonment/death penalty. I don't want to repeat that here but mention it if someone wishes to dig them up.

However, my point mentioned prior on this thread concerning how a civilized society cannot last unless it effectively restrains or removes from society those who cannot or will not live within the basic rules goes beyond the obvious case of the violent mentally ill (as seems to be the case in this shooting event).

What about the person who permanently lost any form of drivers license on their 3rd DWI, but still continues to drive, and drink, and finally after accumulating a total of 8 DWI convictions then wipes out a family of 5 in a massive accident while driving drunk (of course he lived and I'm betting will get additional DWI convictions in the future). I hope I don't offend anyone - but I do not understand why this person was allowed any access to any kind of vehicle other than as a passenger after their 4th DWI; and certainly by the 8th one should have been effectively removed from society.

I am sure there are other situations which warrant actions.

I do in fact support effective treatments (or institutions), changes in our criminal code, changes in how most people are imprisoned (there is a place for an attempt for rehabilitation for most people - but that is not what most of our current prisons do); and various other detection and preventive measures to identify and restrict or remove threats to society.

But, I also understand the concept that when things go wrong in a bad way - it is up to us personally to be able to respond because "we" are the "someone" who is responsible in the United States. Laws do not stop mad people, nor sane people who are committed to criminal behavior.

To others - I still get some comments about how gun control would have stopped this. Lets see: Individual did not own guns; was denied quick permission to buy guns legally due to local gun control laws when they tried to buy a gun, and chose to steel them instead.

Individual was willing to kill the person they stole the guns from to get the guns.

If someone is willing to kill someone else to get what they want - then no laws and no amount of "reasonable" gun control is going to stop them.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[yssie]

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 do not think the answer is this simple. One cannot simply institutionalize someone because one suspects he may be a threat in the future. Also: in a time when no one wants taxes raised, no one is going to pay the costs of increased mental health care. The reason that state hospitals were closed and that less care was provided in local communities was that no one wanted to pay the cost of mental health care.

Yeah, I know all of that. And I really don't care. The deviate and defective and violent and dangerous should not be allowed to ruin life for the rest of us normal people. They can NEVER be reprogrammed or mainstreamed and will always be a hazard to others. If you can't euthanize them, at least incarcerate them.

I have firsthand experience with such a child, because my brother and SIL adopted one. After about 9 years of constant theatrics and property damage, and arson fires, he tried to kill my SIL, first with a knife, then by grabbing the steering wheel and forcing their car head-on into oncoming Interstate traffic. He landed in the juvie system, of course. Then was in foster home a while, then became and adult and unfortunately has been turned loose on the public. He broke into someone's townhouse and started a fire there. My bro and SIL have a restraining order and are also good friends with the local cops who are keeping tabs on kid's movements.

If he ever goes near my parents or me again, it will be his last day on Earth.

You have spoken about your own choices above. You do not care about whether society finds an answer to a problem. You do not care if people with certain illnesses can be cured. That does not mean that no one else can care.

I do not know if there is really evil on earth. When I have read about people who get pleasure from torturing animals at early age and go on to torturing and killing people, I have wondered if enjoyment of cruelty, true sadism which goes beyond sociopathy, is evil or pathology. I know as a mother that I saw a peach of a child, one who cried for a little skunk who had no friends, become overcome by bipolar illness and become violent in early teens. She never drew a knife or set a fire. She never harmed an animal or any other living thing. But she cannot control herself. She is not the same person at all. Her illness robbed her of everything. A student who got all A's and could play any musical instrument-she was a wonderful cellist-could not concentrate at all in school or practice her instruments at all. I don't want her euthanized; I want her tenderly loved and protected, helped and nurtured...until there is a cure for what torments her. Inside she is the beautiful child who cried for the little skunk.

Deb/AGBF

Deb - no words, but a big hug.
I'm sorry. This post gave me chills.
I hope one day there will be effective and reliable treatments for all types of bipolar disorder that don't rob victims of health, mind, and personality.


TC - I'm so sorry for what your brother and SIL have gone through, too - I couldn't imagine

 

[innerkitten]

I don't own a gun or know much about them, but I'd love to see some major gun control. It's one thing to own a rifle but a semi automatic rifle?

 

[LaraOnline]

Unbelievably tragic conversation we are having here.
AGBF, I am so sorry to hear of your experiences with your darling daughter.

The big issue when it comes to these kinds of mass tragedies is not mental illness in itself is it. It is mental illness combined with ready access to the most efficient personal killing weapon ever invented. This guy killed all these innocents in about 10 minutes.

For anyone who is interested, here is the editorial which was in our national broadsheet today.

According to the newspaper, Australian statistics showed that gun related suicides fell by 74% when semi-automatics were banned in Aus.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-for-gun-control/story-e6frg71x-1226537933754

 

[Kaleigh]

As always Deb you amaze me with your fortitude and strength. I know your daughter has had battles and know it's very hard.

I just wanted to say , I love the Mom that you are...

And have "known you for quite some time"

Giving you a big hug now.. You are a hero in my book.

xoxo

Lisa

 

[AGBF]

As always Deb you amaze me with your fortitude and strength. I know your daughter has had battles and know it's very hard.

I just wanted to say , I love the Mom that you are...

And have "known you for quite some time"

Giving you a big hug now.. You are a hero in my book.

xoxo

Lisa

I love you Lisa and Yssie. Thank you. Thank you, too, Lara. You are very kind.

Deb

 

[Tuckins1]

Every edge feels raw and a sadness hangs on me like a wet blanket. I'm late to post but my heart is so heavy for this tragic loss of so many innocent angels and their teachers. Prayers and tears for the community of Sandy Hook Elementary School.

May God hold you in his arms and give you the strength to move forward.

This made me cry. Thank you for so eloquently saying what I could not say, but feel in my heart.

 

[partgypsy]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinion/gergen-gun-culture/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

 

[MichelleCarmen]

I don't own a gun or know much about them, but I'd love to see some major gun control. It's one thing to own a rifle but a semi automatic rifle?

Exactly, my husband and I were wondering why the hell AK 47s are even made. Seriously. WHY?

We need a major overhawl in the US. A few months back, a parent at my kids' school told me her husband collects guns and they wouldn't live in a country that wouldn't allow them to own a gun. I'm thinking, I'd prefer to have my kids in a school which didn't allow parents to own guns. The daughter later told my son that her dad is a "survivalist." Ugh, NO, NUT JOB!