My best friend from college's sister's best friend (follow that?) was one of the teachers killed. She could barely get the words out over the phone. I feel like an idiot for never even asking, being that she's from CT. It hurts and I don't even know the person.

I feel less and less safe going to work every morning.

I'm a developmental psychologist, not a physician... but with regard to the meds commentary, my perspective is that while ADHD is most certainly over diagnosed and stimulant meds like Adderall and Ritalin overused, I'm not as worried about the meds as I am the misdiagnoses. Incorrectly labeling a child as ADHD and shuffling them off onto meds means that child isn't getting the care they actually need and a disorder goes untreated... which can absolutely worsen over time. It allows parents, teachers, and peers to ignore other symptoms or warning signs. This is the part that actually scares me.

I'm not sure if anyone has already posted this, but my sister who is a Pi Phi just passed on to me that one of the victims, Lauren Rousseau, was a Pi Beta Phi (Connecticut Alpha).

This is what really disturbed us, too. I knew it wouldn't be long before we started hearing he was a "loner," "lacked empathy," "wasn't very social" and that it would be a short trip from there to "he may have had Asperger Syndrome."

:(

The Catholic Church in Newtown was just evacuated due to a bomb threat.

I read an article this morning (I wish I could find it now) that said he may have had Aspberger's, but that there is no indication that the disorder causes a person to act out violently. I don't mind if they mention it, as long as it's also pointed out that there is most likely no direct correlation between this particular disorder and the killer's murderous/suicidal thoughts and actions.

There was a really great article posted today by the mother of a mentally ill child who has violent episodes.

I came here to post the same article. Beautifully written. My heart goes out to the mother. And my heart goes out to Adam Lanza's father. It has been reported that people who knew the killer knew that something was very, very wrong with him. I wonder if his parents had tried to get him help and found the same thing as the woman who wrote that article - the options are limited for the severely mentally ill. Back in the 50's and 60's, there were state run institutions for mentally ill....as well as the developmentally disabled. They were wretched and it's actually a good thing that most (if not all) were done away with. But, they were not replaced by better alternatives. Our health care system is in disarray and mental illness treatment is expensive - even with health insurance. The social stigma of mental illness is incredible. I hope this tragedy brings forth a new way to treat those who are mentally ill so that the people who died at Sandy Hook didn't die in vain.

I know it's bad to speak ill of the dead, but I keep coming back to this: His (late) mother KNEW he struggled with all kinds of mental issues, yet she kept an array of weaponry in the house, complete with rounds of ammunition. One of those weapons was a military-type assault rifle. Did she never think that might not have been a good idea?
Something else--he knew which weapon to use. The pistols were (I believe) unfired. All the dead were riddled with large bullets from the assault rifle. And guns like these render "secure schools" ineffective. He shot his way into the building. Some of the dead had as many as 11 bullet wounds; all had an least three.
Little children, most of them six, so young they still had their baby teeth. Good God--what have we come to? And--I'm sorry--some jackass this morning said if the teachers there were armed there would have been fewer deaths. Some days I feel like I'm in an alternative universe.

This is a town and school I had been to. I have friends and family in Sandy Hook, other parts of Newtown, and other surrounding communities. One of my co-workers did her student teaching at Sandy Hook Elementary last year. It's not that I was deeply saddened and angered by all the other school and mass shootings, but this hit really close to home and made everything so harsh and real. This is a town similar to where I grew up, similar to the town where I teach. The high school where I teach has open campus policies such that students or anyone else can enter and exit as they please. I've stated since I began working at this school that I feel seriously unsafe. I get weird looks for that statement, as it is a very quiet and affluent community full of privileged students.
I hope that schools and communities can work to create safer schools. I hope these families can begin to heal. There are all sorts of outpourings of love, support, etc. all over MA and CT radios. I'm sure this is the same in other places as well.

Sigh. This sucks.

The state run facilities needed to be reformed no doubt, but to me, the lack of appropriate mental health care goes back to the state of the health care industry. Insurance carriers limit what they are willing to pay; therefore providers aren't able to sustain operations. Perhaps spending a bit more as a society on health care could not only make us all healthier, but safer in the long run.

This may be true, but we have NO IDEA what transpired between the gunman and his mother prior to his shooting her. We do know that he tried, a few days before, to buy a gun at a store and was unable to do so. We don't know how well she locked up her guns. We don't know if he killed her to get TO her guns. We don't know if he attacked her and she tried to act in self-defense. There are so many unknowns that may be resolved in the next few days, and there are many unknowns that we'll never know.

Speculation and misinformation has been popping around since Friday morning--things that are "confirmed" are debunked moments later. Remember how it was "certain" that the mom was a teacher at the school, and he was allowed in? Neither of these items ended up being true. "Close family friends" who say that she took her sons target shooting ended up being merely acquaintances.

As someone with a journalism degree, I have seen the break down of the journalism profession partially due to the need to the report the news first. In this instant news internet age, the first stories are not usually the most accurate. In the race to post first, the facts are often garbled or lost completely. Then those who reported those incorrect facts most often do not go back and set the record straight, they have moved on to the next story. However, in defense of the good, careful journalists out there I have read a few very thoughtful pieces which have restored a little of my journalistic faith.

A lot of people I know with good health insurance STILL can't get the mental health care they need. Twenty sessions/year is standard (though maybe this changes in 2013 with Obamacare?), and that ain't much.

My current policy from my employer is pretty top notch, and access to mental health benefits is extremely limited.

...which is why people who can end up paying out of pocket to providers. Sometimes mental health care providers don't even take insurance. If they do, they might not be able to see you for months at a time, or might not be accepting new patients. The way mental health care in this country is addressed is shameful.

In Illinois, we have parity, so if your insurance covers visits to specialists of any type, they have to cover psychiatry at the same level. What does this do? It makes the cheapest option to see a psychiatrist (yes, an MD) for therapy, instead of a PhD. or an LCSW or whomever else. This is a ridiculous misallocation of resources.

On a related note, I teach students at two universities, both of which provide excellent health care to their students, but have under-resourced and under-staffed counseling centers.

That Bushmaster is NOT a 'military-type assault rifle'. By definition an assault rifle, which is military type, is capable of full automatic fire. A machine gun. I don't know if they are legal in CT or not, but are in my part of the country, Oklahoma and Texas. The Bushmaster LOOKS like an assault rifle, but uses the same direct gas impingement or gas piston system that any other semi-automatic rifle has used for the last 70+ years.

Apparently not. You would think that she would have at least had them locked up with a known violent person in the home.

When you are out to kill children is there a wrong choice? Does it matter? I don't know what his choices were, but anything will work on children, when unopposed, because killing effectiveness is all about bullet placement and/or multiple shots. The morning of the shooting in CT someone in China attacked a school and stabbed 22 children. He obviously didn't have a clue what he was doing if his intention was to kill. The knife should be inserted at a point one inch behind and a half inch down from the ear canal. Attacks to the throat, heart, kidney, and femoral artery are all effective as well depending on what the angle of approach is. For that matter a baseball bat is effective on small children. Let us not for get about the biggest mass murder in the US, other than the attacks on 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, when 87 people were burned alive at a nightclub in The Bronx in 1990. The killer used a 5 gallon can of gasoline. I wonder how many kids he could have killed using gas?

I have chosen not to read the details of the killings nor watch the news about it so I do not know how accurate the term 'riddled' would be. I don't believe that 3 shots qualifies as 'riddled', but people like you probably refer to it as a massacre as well. Cops killed a meth producer a few miles from by house and shot him 5 times and I don't believe that 'riddled' was ever used. We already covered your inaccurate and emotional use of the term 'assault rifle', but be aware that the Bushmaster's most common caliber is 5.56mm or .223 inches. The Glock and SIG mention on the news could not have been smaller than 9mm which is .355 inches. The most common weight for a .223 bullet is 55gr though 63gr is common as well. The smallest non-exotic 9mm slug I have seen is 90gr with the 115-124 gr being the most common and the 147gr sub-sonic used in suppressed firearms. Basically your comments are completely inaccurate. This would be due to a lack of knowledge on your part or outright deception.

I have never seen a 'secure school'. Putting up a sign doesn't make it secure. A military base is 'secure'. An airport gate area is 'secure'. Even those can be compromised.

I have no idea, but this isn't the first time and it won't be the last. The first one that I remember was August 1, 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 13 and wounded 32 at UT Austin. That incident precipitated the formation of SWAT teams around the US.

That wasn't me, but earth to ostrich, pull your head out of the sand. At least that person has mentioned a proven effective way to prevent future occurrances. As examples I give you the assistant principal in Pearl, MS. Unfortunately he was not allowed to carry his .45 auto into the school. He had to go out to the parking lot to retrieve it from his car while the shooter was able to kill more. He held the shooter at gunpoint for police before they were able to kill more high schoolers and before the killer got to the junior high to kill more there. I also suggest that we take a lesson from Israel. They arm teachers and flight personel on El Al airways. The Israelis have been under attack by Arabs for decades and decided to defend against the attacks. There have been no mass shootings at schools in Israel that I am aware of and El Al has never been hijacked. In Texas if a teacher has a concealed carry permit they can get permission from the principal to carry at school. In fact, in October my son ran into his former high school english teacher at his concealed carry refresher class. There have been no mass shootings at schools in Texas since that law passed. I know of no successful mass shootings at gun shows or in gun stores either. Gee, I wonder why? Could it have something to do with these sickos picking on only defenseless people.

So rather than dismissing a proven effective response, why don't you offer an answer? If it is gun control, exactly what gun law would prevent someone from murdering a gun owner and using the gun to commit crime? In fact if police were the only ones with guns the easiest way to get one is kill a cop and take his. Quit complaining and come up with an effective deterrent.

Every time I hear someone suggest that teachers be armed, this is what I wonder.

How do you secure a firearm in the presence of children?

If said firearm is secured, how do you get to it quickly enough to react before you are taken out by the attacker, bearing in mind that this is real life and not an action movie?

And before you flame me, know that while I choose to not own a gun, I am not anti-gun. I grew up in a gun-owning family. I was taught respect for firearms at an early age, and I knew that I was not to ever touch my father's and grandfathers' guns without supervision. Not everyone in our society is taught these things, and I can't imagine being responsible for a firearm around children who have not been raised to respect guns and who may believe they are toys.

No flaming from me at all. You bring up a good point. The only way to carry concealed is to carry on your person. If it is not with you, it needs to be locked up.

People who carry guns do so at the cost of being inconvenienced, but put up with it for the added safety. One of the biggest problems we have is with female carriers. They cannot carry in a purse unless the purse is attached to them so they can't set it down. Guys have issues using the bathroom in a public stall with a belt holster. I live in an area that gets hot in the summer. I would love to be able to go to the pool or beach, take off my shirt, and get in the water. This is not an option for me unless I have someone go with me so I can use 'off body carry', I use a SCUBA dry box to conceal the gun at the pool, lake, or beach. Even the lightest gun I own still weighs 12 oz and creates an obvious drag in a nylon swimsuit.

Securing at home for child safety is very important. When I was growing up my father's handgun came off his belt in the holster, still loaded, and was placed on top of his dresser. This was an every evening occurrance and when it came off Friday it was there until he went back to work on Monday. This was the way the FBI taught agents home gun safety. Take the mystery out of it, treat it as though it were an kitchen range. I like the idea, but it requires a great deal of work on the part of the gun owner. I did it with my son and it worked beautifully, but you have to be totally committed.

Now there is an easy way out. Isn't that what everyone is looking for? All guns are sold with a lock to disable the firearm. Gun owners I know who have multiple firearms own a safe or vault to store them which is a good option. Obviously those methods are not accessible, but they are not intended to be. Around the house I carry on my person. When I go to sleep at night it goes on the nightstand, but I have it with me when watching TV, eating dinner, working on a motorcycle in the garage, or doing laundry. It is with me. The gun is secure and it is accessible.

If firearms are in a home with children I highly recommend the NRA Eddie the Eagle program of gun safety. It has proven to be very effective for young children.

I did want to jump in on the God allows guns issue. There is some misunderstanding here that needs clarificaiton. The source of all this is actually in the Declaration of Independence.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...'

Those items in the Bill of Rights, part of the US Constitution, are the unalianable rights. We believe that everyone is born with those rights at birth, they are endowed by God, and not just people in the US. For example, in North Korea there is no right to free speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, but that is because of laws there. Trial by jury, due process, collection of evidence, freedom, cruel and unusual punishment, and even gun ownership are all rights that people have, but are frequently denied by laws. Just because there are laws against it does not mean that a right does not still exist. The people still have the right, they are just being prevented from exercising that right. Governments are suppose to exist to protect those rights and North Korea, amoung other countries, does not do a very good job of it.

People have rights. There is a misconception that the government grants those rights to the people. That is not how it works. Governments grant privledges. You are born with rights, they are given by God. It isn't in the Bible. It is in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

We do have laws in place that prevent irresponsible people from getting their hands on firearms. According to reports, this guy tried buying a gun last tuesday but wasn't able to because of.....yep, gun laws. CT has some pretty strict gun control laws in place as is, and the facts prove that stricter laws do not prevent random acts of violence like this. If you want to throw blame at people or groups other than the shooter why not the entertainment industry that glamorizes and desensitizes us to violence, or the health care industry that puts mental health issues aside, or this guys mother who failed to properly secure her firearms while living with a mentally disturbed son? Gun control is just one facet of these problems yet it seems like the only thing people want to talk about and politicize and push through. When it comes to violence, guns only make up the how and not the why and if we can't see past that we will continue to have these random rampages.

I've seen a link that counters the reality of that first one.. the mom's blog. It is disturbing. http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/...read-her-blog/

Insurance will pay for whatever your employer is willing for them to pay. They choose to skimp on that coverage. The state and community mental health systems, which treat people for free if necessary are seriously underfunded. I could go on a really rant on the mental health system. I quit working in the field because of the short lengths of stay for inpatients and the total frustration of not being able to give patients what they needed. We've pushed most of the seriously mentally ill into the prison system. It's totally ridiculous.

The problem with the idea of teachers conceal carrying is that the more likely occurence than them saving a room full of children from a lone gunman would be that their gun would be used to accidentally or intentionally injur a child in their care. It happens to the most well meaning gun owners in their own homes, but having this happen in a classroom would start a firestorm that would eclipse anything you've seen before. Also, parents have the right NOT to leave their children in the care of someone with a gun. It's dangerous. Accidents do happen. More often than gunmen break into schools.

THIS!

I agree and have no problem if the context is provided. All too often, particularly early on, it isn't though.

Yes, I know what's in the Declaration of Indendence and the Constitution, and I imagine everyone else here does, too. I don't think there's much misunderstanding. It's just that as much as I revere the Declaration of Independence and what it stands for, I don't consider it authoritative when it comes to theology. I'm guessing others may feel the same way.

In the parlance of the late 18th Century,the right to "the pursuit of Happiness" refers not to the ability to do what we like to do, but to security of wellbeing. The Second Amendment in that context arises from the 18th Century experience that (1) firearms can be necessary for defense and for the precurement of food, both of which are part of security of wellbeing, and (2) that security of wellbeing is threatened when the government can deprive people of the ability to defend themselves or to procure food.

Hunting rifles, which is what the post people have responded mentioned, in a 21st Century context do not necessarily fit that understanding.

I have said a number of times that I don't agree with those who want to see guns banned or even the Second Amendment repealed. I think that's wrong-headed and won't solve the problems.

But it's time to have serious discussions with no sacred cows. If the gun lobby is going to offer nothing more than stupidity like "this is why teachers need to be armed" and is going to fight even the most reasonable restrictions and requirements, then they are part of the problem, pure and simple. (But be clear, not all of the problem by any means.)

Yes, defend the Second Amendment. But anyone who's going to rely on the Declaration of Independence should bear in mind that the first enumerated creator-endowed right is that of Life, and that government is instituted to secure that right for all citizens just as much as other rights. Murder is always going to happen; mass murder even. But it is not unreasonable to look for some way to balance the right to bear arms with the right of citizens to be secure in their right to Life.

The only way for a gun to fire is to pull the trigger. If a gun is in a holster, and nobody touches it, it will not go off. Cops do have accidental discharges, but that is usually in the locker room when they are readying a firearm to go on duty. As in Texas, and probably Israel, the children never see a firearm. In the US we are all in the care of people with guns. The police, so like it or not they are there.

Right you are. I went back to reread and the comments were directed toward hunting rifles and the Second Amendment isn't about hunting.

I absolutely think that gun control should be discussed. I just can't, for the life of me, think of a law that would have protected those kids. As I said before, even if you suddenly make guns disappear so you can't even get one by killing a cop, how do you stop a knife wielding psycho from stabbing 6 year olds? How do you prevent them from chaining exit doors and firebombing the school with gasoline? What law prevents it? I do not propose to arm all teachers, but it worked in Pearl, MS and has worked in Israel. I cannot prove a deterrent affect in Texas as it is unknown how many teachers are actually armed.

In Israel, all teachers have had extensive gun training in their minimum 2 years (for women) or 3 years (for men) of military training.

And in Pearl, the gun the assistant principal used had to be retrieved from his car; it was not the in school.

Like I said, you can't stop these things completely. The "what ifs" can go on forever. What if the assistant principal in Pearl who got his gun out of his car had been the first person the shooter killed?

The problem is that all too often the "what law could possibly work?" line stops the discussion. The answer is "I don't know. Let's put lots of informed heads together and see what we can figure out."

This. I do think that if the solution is to arm someone in the school, it would need to be someone with extensive training. I am not anti-gun, and I do not think more gun control is the answer to preventing mass shootings. However, I don't know how much it would help to arm teachers. If someone comes into a teacher's classroom with a gun, the teacher would have to be able to react quickly enough to grab his/her gun and pull the trigger, before possibly getting shot themselves. Not only would they have to react quickly, they would also have to hit their target - not an easy feat when children are probably running around, the shooter is firing, and there is just complete chaos. Someone who carries, but has very little experience, may not be able to react effectively in this situation.

Like I said, I am not anti-gun. I don't think gun control laws can prevent shootings like this. But, I'm not sure that arming teachers is the answer. It's a much more complicated theory than it may seem.

I had to go to City Hall last week. At the only entrance, there were four friendly police officers, all armed, who checked my bag and had me walk through a metal detector before giving me directions to the office I needed and sending me on my merry way. If we can provide this sort of protection to our elected officials, why not to our kids at public schools? Just having officers with guns at the door may do a lot to deter those who are looking for a 'soft' target. Nothing says "Attack here, helpless people inside!" like the Gun-Free Zone signs outside of our schools.

We're holding a candlelight vigil tonight at LTU. I just wrote all of the names (after reading their bios), tied them to chrysanthemums, prepped candles, and tied ribbons all day. The floodgates to my emotions are wide open.

But when I go to the middle schools in Detroit with barbed wire fenced, armed personnel, and metal detectors, I feel like I'm walking into a police state. Even though I'm doing nothing wrong, I feel like I have to be extra careful with everything I do. That's not an environment I would want to learn in.

I've traveled to many high schools across my state and it's not uncommon for them to have metal detectors at the entrances. It's also not uncommon for police officers to be visible at random times/places on high school campuses.

My experience with middle and elementary schools is considerably more limited, so I can only say what it's like at my kids' schools: I cannot enter their schools (outside of normal drop-off/pick-up times) without being buzzed into the building and, once inside, I cannot access any areas where kids may be (classrooms, library, gym, cafeteria, etc...) without first going through the office to obtain a visitor pass.

I have assumed these measures were put into place post-Columbine in an attempt to prevent a similar tragedy. Regardless of the reason, schools are making an effort to protect our kids. Unfortunately, short of living in a bubble, there's no way to anticipate and prepare for the unthinkable acts we're seeing these days.

To be honest, this story is too heartbreaking for me to follow, and I've been deliberately avoiding the news (both online and on TV), which is difficult. Reading this thread is the most active I've been with anything having to do with the tragedy. I don't really have much to add to the discussion, but felt like I should acknowledge that some schools are doing exactly what SigKapSweetie suggested.

I can only hope that once the initial trauma of Friday's events has faded a bit, our country can have an honest, open discussion about our obsession with firearms.

Having worked in a place like that - it can be very stressful. There is always an undercurrent of "what if? what if? what if?" Whatever happened to letting children be innocent? for just a little longer? :(

That's one reason, along with more general concern about unauthorized access to schools and to students. Here all middle schools have at least one "resource office" (a sheriff''s deputy); high schools have more.

Yes, and about mental illness, and about densensitization (is that a word?) to violence in our culture, and . . . .

Yes, absolutely.

Who are highly trained and carefully screened, yet there are still incidents with the improper use of firearms by this very select group. Not sure I would want random teachers around children armed honestly. I also feel that while people should have access to firearms if they have a need, most people who carry weapons have no need to do so. Hunting rifles to help feed your family, yes. Handguns so that you can feel like a badass? no. I'm not anti-gun by any stretch of the imagination, and I do quite enjoy it. However I think people kind of overstate the "right to bear arms."

True, which was why he was not able to stop the killing sooner. At least he got to the shooter before he left for the middle school.

I agree.

Anyone carrying a firearm in public should be trained. Police officers or deputies would be fine, but they have to be there. The govt run Flight Deck Officer program has been successful arming airline pilots for nearly 10 years. El Al has done this for decades.

Arming private citizens has worked in the past. From Austin, TX in 1966 to Pearl, MS in 1997 to West Virginia law school in 2002.

Yes, but that would be if the shooter snuck into the school and went to that teacher first. In this shooting the psycho shot out the window to get into the school. Everyone heard it. When the shooting started it wasn't at people. Columbine was the same way. The teachers were not the first to be shot. To have it not be effective the shooter would have to neutralize all the potential threats before going after the children. Unlikely.

I am not sure that is the answer either, let alone the only answer. As an aside, I just saw the news and Oklahoma is no looking at legislation to allow qualified teachers to carry at school.

It would probably be effective and sadly it may be necessary.

The problem is that we never know when that need will arise. If we did we would never carry and just not go where we knew there was going to be a problem. Just like auto insurance or home owners. I have not had an accident in 35 years and the only home owners claim I had was a roof due to hail about 10 years ago. Had I known that I would have saved thousands of dollars on insurance. With all the vehicles I have now I would save thousands of dollars a year now, but you won't catch me without auto or homeowners insurance. Same with a gun. When I have needed one, I was VERY happy to have been able to put a stop to the violence and never had to fire a shot. But I would have if needed.

We don't need hunting rifles. I rarely shoot a rifle. I don't hunt. You can go to a store if you need food. When I do shoot a rifle it is an MSR, Modern Sporting Rifle. Some call it an assault rifle, even if it isn't. They are popular for hunting. Down in Texas an MSR in .458 SOCOM or .500 Beowolf is the popular choice for hunting deadly wild hogs.

I don't carry to feel like a badass. I carry to feel safe. I have found myself in bad situations. I grew up differently. I was a target at age five and grew up having to be careful so was trained in firearms use beginning at age six. The right to bear arms is not over stated. There are very specific reasons why the Second Amendment was written and fireamrs like the military uses are actually the specific firearms intended to be protected.
In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

If you don't know what the Militia is you can find it in USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
...
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Think about the airport and how people feel their right to privacy is being trampled on by the TSA. How many of those people would want their children going through a metal detector everyday while possibly being subjected to a pat-down by a rent-a-cop? I think you have a good idea, but it would probably get a tremendous amount of push back.