School Shooting Newtown CT

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

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?

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.

[IndianaSigKap]

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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.

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.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

...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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

...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.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

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..

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.

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

Did she never think that might not have been a good idea?

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

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

Something else--he knew which weapon to use. The pistols were (I believe) unfired.

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?

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

All the dead were riddled with large bullets from the assault rifle.

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.

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

And guns like these render "secure schools" ineffective. He shot his way into the building.

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.

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

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?

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.

Originally Posted by PGD-GRAD

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.

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.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[Jeff OTMG]

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

Absolutely they're to blame in this. They blockade any discussion that any politician in this country can have about gun-rights and how to prevent irresponsible people from getting a hold of one.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by happilyanchored

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

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/

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

...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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

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.

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.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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!