School Shooting Newtown CT

[AGDee]

I know our first instinct is "We must find a way to stop this" but (as pessimistic as this is going to sound), I don't see any way to prevent this type of incident. You can lock all the doors, place an armed guard at the door, etc. It won't stop someone from shooting that guard first, then breaking a window to get inside.

There are a lot more precautions in place than there used to be. Schools do lockdown drills regularly. There is more security in place in most places than there was before Columbine.

I looked up some statistics, and an average of six children die daily in traffic accidents. Yes, things like Columbine and Sandy Hook are tragic. My heart hurts for the parents, siblings, grandparents and especially the children. I'm not minimizing how awful this was. But it is a rare event. Thank goodness it is a rare event, but it is a rare event. And we probably can't prevent it, without turning schools into prison like environments.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know our first instinct is "We must find a way to stop this" but (as pessimistic as this is going to sound), I don't see any way to prevent this type of incident. You can lock all the doors, place an armed guard at the door, etc. It won't stop someone from shooting that guard first, then breaking a window to get inside.

There are a lot more precautions in place than there used to be. Schools do lockdown drills regularly. There is more security in place in most places than there was before Columbine.

I looked up some statistics, and an average of six children die daily in traffic accidents. Yes, things like Columbine and Sandy Hook are tragic. My heart hurts for the parents, siblings, grandparents and especially the children. I'm not minimizing how awful this was. But it is a rare event. Thank goodness it is a rare event, but it is a rare event. And we probably can't prevent it, without turning schools into prison like environments.

I completely agree. However, if criminals knew that schools had security guards or something of the like, maybe it would stop them from trying to shoot up schools. Criminals pick security free zones to commit crimes because everyone is defenseless.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I completely agree. However, if criminals knew that schools had security guards or something of the like, maybe it would stop them from trying to shoot up schools. Criminals pick security free zones to commit crimes because everyone is defenseless.

Would you be willing to tell every school in the country to trade one teacher for a security guard and just make it work?

It's not as if suddenly schools are going to get free money to make something like that happen, so such a thing would come at the cost of fewer teachers or cuts elsewhere and it's really questionable whether a security guard would be an effective deterrent.

The media is in hysterics about this thing. These sorts of shootings are actually on a very steep decline. Go look at the statistics, school shootings are about half as common as they were 20 years go.

[ZTAngel]

Another great article along with suggestions as to how to make it more difficult for these mass murders to occur without revoking the 2nd amendment:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openfo...es-4125553.php

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

Another great article along with suggestions as to how to make it more difficult for these mass murders to occur without revoking the 2nd amendment:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openfo...es-4125553.php

Not much of an article really, just a BS emotional appeal from someone who was shot by a total sociopath. Of course there's not one single thing he proposed which would have prevented that crazy SOB from walking up that driveway and shooting him and his wife and his friend.

I hate that we're all still seriously talking about this "need" of reform. We don't need to do jack squat. At least not immediately. Laws made directly in the wake of emotional events typically aren't well thought out or even needed.

These types of shootings are becoming more rare, not more common and saying that the NRA has blood on its hands is just silly.

Those of you on the East and West coast probably don't really understand. You call 911 and typically, if it's a real emergency, you don't have to wait very long for the police to arrive.

Out here in the sticks, it's quite a bit different. Even if you live in a fairly dense place like Oklahoma County, if you live in an unincorporated part of the county or in a town which doesn't have the money for its own police station (we have those) a sheriff could be a good couple of hours away--more if he's otherwise occupied when you call. That's not much comfort when someone is trying to kick in your back door and your nearest neighbor is a half-mile away.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know our first instinct is "We must find a way to stop this" but (as pessimistic as this is going to sound), I don't see any way to prevent this type of incident.

That may be our first instinct, but it's the wrong question, I think. You're right that we can never "stop" things like this. The better question is "are we doing all we can to prevent these incidents from happening."

Originally Posted by Kevin

I hate that we're all still seriously talking about this "need" of reform. We don't need to do jack squat. At least not immediately. Laws made directly in the wake of emotional events typically aren't well thought out or even needed.

I don't know about that. I think history just might support the idea that sometimes those emotional events are what prompt people in power into actually doing something. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was a direct catalyst for workplace safety laws. The Selma to Montgomery marches, and particularly the violence in Selma, was a catalyst for the passage of the Voting Rights Act (which LBJ sent to Congress just ten days after Selma).

I agree that haste isn't advisable. But the truth is that there is a window in which discussion are more likely to happen. Strike will the iron is hot and all.

These types of shootings are becoming more rare, not more common . . . .

What this means may be a matter of perspective. I agree that the evidence seems to show that mass killings overall have been in decline in recent years. But just in 2012, we've had Aurora, Oak Creek, WI, Minneapolis and now Newtown. To me, that means (1) they're not rare enough and (2) we're not doing all we can to reduce them more.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't know about that. I think history just might support the idea that sometimes those emotional events are what prompt people in power into actually doing something. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was a direct catalyst for workplace safety laws. The Selma to Montgomery marches, and particularly the violence in Selma, was a catalyst for the passage of the Voting Rights Act (which LBJ sent to Congress just ten days after Selma).

It's a matter of perspective, but comparing the Shirtwaist Factory or the incidents in the South during the civil rights era isn't a very apt comparison. Consider that while not routine, school shootings are something which have reoccurred many times going back to colonial times (of course these days, our deaths are not usually caused by marauding native war bands). While tragic, this has happened before many many times and regardless of what laws you pass, it'll happen again.

If you're going to consider new legislation, there needs to be a weighing of cost vs. benefit. There's a strong argument to be made that finding any benefit whatsoever is tricky to impossible.

Strike will the iron is hot and all.

Exploiting tragedy to score political points.

What this means may be a matter of perspective. I agree that the evidence seems to show that mass killings overall have been in decline in recent years. But just in 2012, we've had Aurora, Oak Creek, WI, Minneapolis and now Newtown. To me, that means (1) they're not rare enough and (2) we're not doing all we can to reduce them more.

It's not disputable that 2012 has been an exceptionally bad year, but it is nowhere close to what we used to see 20 years ago. We passed gun legislation back then. How many deaths were prevented by the Clinton "assault weapons" ban?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Exploiting tragedy to score political points.

Sometimes. Sometimes, it's responding to events by doing the right thing, doing what's in society's best interests. Sometimes it's saying "Enough already! We can't stop them all, but we'll stop the ones we can."

It's not disputable that 2012 has been an exceptionally bad year, but it is nowhere close to what we used to see 20 years ago. We passed gun legislation back then. How many deaths were prevented by the Clinton "assault weapons" ban?

Actually, the figures I have seen put the number of incidents just a little lower than where it was 20 years ago, with the spike being about 10 years ago, and with the number of victims being about the same if not a little higher than 20 years ago.

As for the assualt weapons ban, it's true things were no better when it was in place. Was that because a ban by nature is ineffective, or was it because that ban was riddled with holes and exceptions and perhaps targeted the wrong things (the weapons themselves rather than the ammunition)? Experts can and do disagree on that.

In any event, I think most of us in this thread have been pretty clear that we don't think "banning guns" is the answer, and that the discussion and action we think needs to happen involves a whole lot more than guns.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Whaaa? Where in the Bible does it say, "Thou shalt have a Baikal MR221?"
<snip>

I never quoted the Bible, a book I see as merely a nice novel with some possibly historical roots. I said "creator-given" -- because that's what our founding documents say -- "...endowed by their creator with ..." in conjunction with the Bill of Rights. -- which codify an innate right.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

<snip>

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.

Yes, speculation and misinformation are still abundant. We simply do not know the specifics yet, and those of us in the general populace may never know.

Originally Posted by amIblue?

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? <snip>

First, you have it on your person - concealed or openly, in a secure holster, which means with the trigger guard covered.
Second - you teach children not to touch. Like a hot stove, or a fireplace.
And third - you may not get to it fast enough. You may see some killed before your eyes. But not dozens. (Colorado shooting was different; I'm not sure anyone could have stopped that, but then, no one had a chance to try.)
I believe that if I can stop one, or TRY to, I've done right. That takes training, mental preparation, and familiarity with the equipment.

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

<snip> 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.

Yes. That's what I meant by my abbreviated comments above.

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.

Accidents happen, yes. But seldom when the rules of safety are followed. Training and practice are critical.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I know our first instinct is "We must find a way to stop this" but (as pessimistic as this is going to sound), I don't see any way to prevent this type of incident. You can lock all the doors, place an armed guard at the door, etc. It won't stop someone from shooting that guard first, then breaking a window to get inside.

There are a lot more precautions in place than there used to be. Schools do lockdown drills regularly. There is more security in place in most places than there was before Columbine.

I looked up some statistics, and an average of six children die daily in traffic accidents. Yes, things like Columbine and Sandy Hook are tragic. My heart hurts for the parents, siblings, grandparents and especially the children. I'm not minimizing how awful this was. But it is a rare event. Thank goodness it is a rare event, but it is a rare event. And we probably can't prevent it, without turning schools into prison like environments.

To all -- thank you. This is a solid, respectful dialog with little of the hate and vitriol that have been seen in previous discussions on this board. I, for one, truly appreciate it.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not much of an article really, just a BS emotional appeal from someone who was shot by a total sociopath. Of course there's not one single thing he proposed which would have prevented that crazy SOB from walking up that driveway and shooting him and his wife and his friend.

I hate that we're all still seriously talking about this "need" of reform. We don't need to do jack squat. At least not immediately. Laws made directly in the wake of emotional events typically aren't well thought out or even needed.

These types of shootings are becoming more rare, not more common and saying that the NRA has blood on its hands is just silly.

So, basically, you're saying let's not do anything at all to at least try to prevent these types of things from happening? I know you always like to play devil's advocate, but I think you're being completely abrasive and insensitive. What happened on Friday is a huge tragedy....probably bigger than anything we've seen in years in that 20 innocent children are being loaded into tiny little coffins. Luckily, it seems the majority of people disagree with you. Politicians who once received high ratings from the NRA are coming around to the idea of serious reform. Will it prevent these instances from happening every single time? No. But it hopefully will make it a little more difficult for a maniac to commit this type of crime. I don't understand how anyone could advocate not doing anything at all just because it won't prevent every instance.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

So, basically, you're saying let's not do anything at all to at least try to prevent these types of things from happening? I know you always like to play devil's advocate, but I think you're being completely abrasive and insensitive.

You should look at my location indicator and know that I have some personal experience in this area. I drive by the OKC bombing memorial several times a day, office 3-4 blocks as the crow flies from there and actually heard and felt that blast, not to mention knowing some of the victims. My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy, but I'm not going to support emotional legislation because that's what some think is apparently the sensitive and non-abrasive thing to do. For the record, I think the rulemaking going on right now with regard to ammonium nitrate sales is ridiculous.

What happened on Friday is a huge tragedy....probably bigger than anything we've seen in years in that 20 innocent children are being loaded into tiny little coffins. Luckily, it seems the majority of people disagree with you. Politicians who once received high ratings from the NRA are coming around to the idea of serious reform.

Define "serious" reform. In my memory, every reform we've had over recent years has been an expansion of gun rights and every "serious" reform as noted by MC, was worked around by the gun industry so quickly that its effect was negligible.

Will it prevent these instances from happening every single time? No. But it hopefully will make it a little more difficult for a maniac to commit this type of crime. I don't understand how anyone could advocate not doing anything at all just because it won't prevent every instance.

Okay, let's look at this case, what law would prevent someone from stealing weapons from their mother who lawfully possessed those weapons? The SOB broke multiple laws doing what he did. That really didn't seem to matter much to him.

In reality, any sort of restrictions are going to make it harder on that family in some rural Oklahoma county from being able to defend itself when someone is trying to break in through the back door at 3 in the morning.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You should look at my location indicator and know that I have some personal experience in this area. I drive by the OKC bombing memorial several times a day, office 3-4 blocks as the crow flies from there and actually heard and felt that blast, not to mention knowing some of the victims. My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy, but I'm not going to support emotional legislation because that's what some think is apparently the sensitive and non-abrasive thing to do. For the record, I think the rulemaking going on right now with regard to ammonium nitrate sales is ridiculous.

I don't deny that you have sympathy for the OKC victims, but saying you have "personal experience" as to how Newtown people feel just because you're from OK is a poor example. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the way you worded it really rubbed me the wrong way. It's like my friends from Florida (or me since I'm from FL) saying stuff like, "Oh, I'm from Florida so I know how the victims of Hurricane Sandy or Katrina feel." No. Their homes were never destroyed, their loved ones never died. Just because they've been through a hurricane or two doesn't mean that they have "personal experience" in that area.

Define "serious" reform. In my memory, every reform we've had over recent years has been an expansion of gun rights and every "serious" reform as noted by MC, was worked around by the gun industry so quickly that its effect was negligible.

So we shouldn't at least attempt to discuss anything because we've failed in the past?

Okay, let's look at this case, what law would prevent someone from stealing weapons from their mother who lawfully possessed those weapons? The SOB broke multiple laws doing what he did. That really didn't seem to matter much to him.

In reality, any sort of restrictions are going to make it harder on that family in some rural Oklahoma county from being able to defend itself when someone is trying to break in through the back door at 3 in the morning.

As I said before, any kind of reform won't prevent every single crime from occurring. Let's say we enact reform that limited the amount of firearms a single person could purchase in a year. Or limited the amount of rounds of ammunition the firearm can hold. Or some kind of mental health act was enacted. Right there we may have prevented VA Tech, Aurora and Tucson. May have being the keywords. I'm not saying it would have prevented it, but I don't see why we don't at least try. We owe it to the victims and their families to at least try to keep this from happening instead of throwing up our hands and saying, "Welp, we've never been successful in the past so let's just do nothing at all."

I have a child who is not much younger than those little children who died on Friday. I'm passionate about this because I see him in this tragedy...and it's scary.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZTAngel

I don't deny that you have sympathy for the OKC victims, but saying you have "personal experience" as to how Newtown people feel just because you're from OK is a poor example. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the way you worded it really rubbed me the wrong way. It's like my friends from Florida (or me since I'm from FL) saying stuff like, "Oh, I'm from Florida so I know how the victims of Hurricane Sandy or Katrina feel." No. Their homes were never destroyed, their loved ones never died. Just because they've been through a hurricane or two doesn't mean that they have "personal experience" in that area.

I heard the blast, felt the blast, knew victims, my father was in a courtroom in which the windows imploded into the courtroom. Our community lost the children in the daycare, so empathy. I don't really care how you feel about what I'm saying, (lack of empathy) my point is that empathy is a dumb reason to write laws which are really solutions in search of problems.

As I said before, any kind of reform won't prevent every single crime from occurring. Let's say we enact reform that limited the amount of firearms a single person could purchase in a year. Or limited the amount of rounds of ammunition the firearm can hold. Or some kind of mental health act was enacted. Right there we may have prevented VA Tech, Aurora and Tucson. May have being the keywords. I'm not saying it would have prevented it, but I don't see why we don't at least try. We owe it to the victims and their families to at least try to keep this from happening instead of throwing up our hands and saying, "Welp, we've never been successful in the past so let's just do nothing at all."

I have a child who is not much younger than those little children who died on Friday. I'm passionate about this because I see him in this tragedy...and it's scary.

His chances of being struck by lightening or killed by a shark are exponentially higher than being shot at grade school. Creating strict new laws in response to this is like trying to swat a fly with an H-bomb.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Those of you on the East and West coast probably don't really understand. You call 911 and typically, if it's a real emergency, you don't have to wait very long for the police to arrive.

Out here in the sticks, it's quite a bit different. Even if you live in a fairly dense place like Oklahoma County, if you live in an unincorporated part of the county or in a town which doesn't have the money for its own police station (we have those) a sheriff could be a good couple of hours away--more if he's otherwise occupied when you call. That's not much comfort when someone is trying to kick in your back door and your nearest neighbor is a half-mile away.

I just now saw this, and I completely agree.

As someone who has lived out in the country her entire life (except when I'm away at school), it's very comforting to know that my father has firearms that could protect us if someone were to break in to our home. People are vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere. It's an easy way for a criminal to try and commit a robbery without being noticed by passerbys, and calling 911 won't do much good when we have one sheriff for our entire county on duty at a time.

This is something that people who think nobody should ever possess a gun simply don't understand. Some people are responsible for their own safety.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I just now saw this, and I completely agree.

As someone who has lived out in the country her entire life (except when I'm away at school), it's very comforting to know that my father has firearms that could protect us if someone were to break in to our home. People are vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere. It's an easy way for a criminal to try and commit a robbery without being noticed by passerbys, and calling 911 won't do much good when we have one sheriff for our entire county on duty at a time.

This is something that people who think nobody should ever possess a gun simply don't understand. Some people are responsible for their own safety.

I grew up in such an area, and never felt that firearms were a solution. Stuff can be replaced. People die.