School Shooting Newtown CT

[wotmac]

there still isn't really a viable statistic for these kinds of incidents, since they are so rare. But this recent trend of rampages, especially by persons that appeared to have had mental disturbances is really alarming. In the wake of this horrible tragedy, I sure hope mental health finally comes to the forefront of public discussion, and something is done to help those who need help in a better way than what we have, which isn't much. I think it's even more important than gun control, although there should be some amends there as well

[Psi U MC Vito]

As has been said before though, an open discussion is not going to happen because people are too protective of their sacred cows. We don't trust teachers enough to let them form unions, yet we want them armed? Really?

[knight_shadow]

Who would be paying for the teachers' guns and licenses? If a teacher is in an "armed" school, can s/he opt out? Can a parent opt out of his/her child being in an "armed" classroom?

#RandomThoughts

[Psi U MC Vito]

What I think would be a good possible solution would be for there to be a member of the local law enforcement at all schools, and for that matter other soft targets like movie theathers. Of course that brings concerns of a police state, so *shrugs*

[adpimiz]

The schools in my hometown have had police there all week just in case because of the risk of "copycat" incidents. Not a bad idea.

[Jeff OTMG]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

You are correct. Guns and gun laws should certainly be examined and included in any discussion of possible solutions for the problem. No reason that they should be excluded. I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights. There are privacy issues with health records, including mental health records. Those are not available for examination. This is a problem in book, but am I willing to allow any health records to become part of a national government controlled database? I am just not there. We are not now, nor should we be, able to incarcerate someone for something someone might do nor should you be able to deny someone a right for a potential future issue. Under existing law you must commit a crime AND be convicted by a jury before you are put in jail. I think that it is a great idea. Frequently we know who is going to cause trouble. One problem is where do you draw the line? Over 30% of black males have been covicted and incarcerated by the time they were 29 years old. Black males make up about 6% of the total US population yet account for over 40% of the US prision population. If we are using a criteria for preventing potential future crime do we start incarcerating black males at age 12? No, that is a violation of their rights, but where do we draw that line when charging people for crimes that they might commit?

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This, I think, is where the rub comes in. I'll absolutely agree that empathy and sympathy are not the reasons to write laws.

But I don't think anyone is in search of a problem. There is without question a problem, and it is not in the least off the mark to discuss what can reasonably be done to make it less of a problem.

Not every suggestion will be reasonable. Not every suggestion will be feasible. Not every suggestion will be effective. That's no reason not to have the discussion.

You are correct, all options need to be examined for effectiveness. One BIG problem that I have had is that the shooting was on Friday morning. By Friday evening the media and some politicians were calling for gun control. Diane Feinstein made an announcement on Monday that she was going to reintroduce her 1994 gun control legislation. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BURIED THE FIRST VICTIM!! They were just waiting in the wings to dance in the blood of children to promote their political agenda. For some reason the media contacted the NRA for comment. As far as I know the shooter was not an NRA member, but the NRA response was basically our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No politcal content or comment, just sympathy. It was not the time for political commentary despite the media baiting.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I do not know your situation so I won't comment on it specifically, but many people who carry a firearm for defense have no substantial chance that they will be in a life or death situation that requires a firearm.

True, just like the majority of cops never find themselves in a life or death situation and they intend to go in harms way. Just like I have home owners, auto, and health insurance, but I never intend to use them. Sure was nice to have health insurance last year when my hospital bill was $315,000, not including doctors, just hospital. Bette to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

And here is where things get tricky. First off, the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the power of the federal government, not the state governments.

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level. A state nor city may restrict your rights.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Second it is argueable that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to what is need to maintain a militia. Discussion of the Second Amendment is difficult because a militia in the sense that it existed in the several states before federation does not exist any more. Keeping that in mind, there have been legal opinions issued stating that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to military duties as part of the militia.

I am afraid that you are not familiar with any of the Supreme Court rulings in the 20th or 21st century regarding the 2nd Amendment. First, if you use the 'militia' as the basis for your argument you need to know what the militia is. 10 USC 311:

'(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.'

So you may be a member of the militia and now even know it. It really doesn't matter be cause Heller vs DC (2008) decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes. If you read the Bill of Rights the word 'people' or 'person' is used throughout. How could it possibly mean an individual in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but a collective group controlled by the government in the 2nd Amendment? It has to mean the same thing everywhere it is used. If guns are controlled by the government then so is the press, speech, and religion.

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

Here's my 2 cents:
1-any gun for private ownership should have to be reloaded after 6 shots.

Why six? Why not two, eight, eighteen? You need to see a guy I know shoot a six shot revolver. I have met Jerry, I do not know him, but he seemed like a nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

2-a person should only be able to buy a limited amount of ammo at one time. Yes, they could stock pile it, but that would mean they'd have time to think if this plan is really a good one, and maybe reconsider. If you have to take out 9 boxes of ammo to go hunting, you might want to try lessons before hunting again.

That is going to put a crimp in shooting sports for alot of people. When I was shooting IPSC in the 1980's I knew guys shooting 1000 rds a week. That can get expensive so reloading was very popular. Now Walmart has gotten so cheap for the amount I shoot it is easier to buy it there.

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

6-teaching civility and conflict resolution has to be another thing changed in our society. Would it solve anything? No. Would it help? I believe it would.

In fact conflict resolution is taught as part of the concealed handgun licensing class in Texas. I think it is a good idea.

Originally Posted by TonyB06

The problem is probably more on the mental health side, but it's the guns that escalate the carnage.

So what to do? Personally, I don't think assault-style weapons should be allowed outside the military.

-renew assault weapons ban
-close gun show loopholes
-limit/eliminate high capacity automatic clips.

let's start with that.

So you admit that the problem is more on the mental health side, but we should do something about the guns. None of the recommendations would have changed last Friday. All the assault weapons ban did was banned cosmentic features. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, and others. Nothing addressed the function of the gun, so compliant guns were made. Magazine capacity is not an issue when you are unopposed. Just change using mulitple mags. There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws apply to gun shows. Individuals can sell guns at gun shows or in the newspaper locally. The federal government has no authority to something that I own to keep me from selling it to a neighbor provided that neighbor is not a prohibited owner.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Who would be paying for the teachers' guns and licenses? If a teacher is in an "armed" school, can s/he opt out? Can a parent opt out of his/her child being in an "armed" classroom?

#RandomThoughts

Interesting. The teachers would pay for their own guns and licenses as they do in Texas, but the opt out is interesting. If a parent opts his child out of an armed classroom, is the child then not under the protective umbrella of the armed teachers? Maybe isolate those children in less secure classrooms or in modules outside the main school?

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

What I think would be a good possible solution would be for there to be a member of the local law enforcement at all schools, and for that matter other soft targets like movie theathers. Of course that brings concerns of a police state, so *shrugs*

Good news in Oklahoma City. The Deer Creek School district in far NW OKC and NW Oklahoma County will now be protected by armed Oklahoma County Sheriffs Deputies until further notice.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The most reasonable, facts-based response against gun control arguments I've seen:

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

Larry has been a friend of mine for many years and I always make time for he and the wife when I am in Salt Lake City. I look forward to meeting with him in Las Vegas in January. Good stuff.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

You are correct. Guns and gun laws should certainly be examined and included in any discussion of possible solutions for the problem. No reason that they should be excluded. I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights. There are privacy issues with health records, including mental health records. Those are not available for examination. This is a problem in book, but am I willing to allow any health records to become part of a national government controlled database? I am just not there. We are not now, nor should we be, able to incarcerate someone for something someone might do nor should you be able to deny someone a right for a potential future issue. Under existing law you must commit a crime AND be convicted by a jury before you are put in jail. I think that it is a great idea. Frequently we know who is going to cause trouble. One problem is where do you draw the line? Over 30% of black males have been covicted and incarcerated by the time they were 29 years old. Black males make up about 6% of the total US population yet account for over 40% of the US prision population. If we are using a criteria for preventing potential future crime do we start incarcerating black males at age 12? No, that is a violation of their rights, but where do we draw that line when charging people for crimes that they might commit?



You are correct, all options need to be examined for effectiveness. One BIG problem that I have had is that the shooting was on Friday morning. By Friday evening the media and some politicians were calling for gun control. Diane Feinstein made an announcement on Monday that she was going to reintroduce her 1994 gun control legislation. THEY HAD NOT EVEN BURIED THE FIRST VICTIM!! They were just waiting in the wings to dance in the blood of children to promote their political agenda. For some reason the media contacted the NRA for comment. As far as I know the shooter was not an NRA member, but the NRA response was basically our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No politcal content or comment, just sympathy. It was not the time for political commentary despite the media baiting.


True, just like the majority of cops never find themselves in a life or death situation and they intend to go in harms way. Just like I have home owners, auto, and health insurance, but I never intend to use them. Sure was nice to have health insurance last year when my hospital bill was $315,000, not including doctors, just hospital. Bette to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.


The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level. A state nor city may restrict your rights.



I am afraid that you are not familiar with any of the Supreme Court rulings in the 20th or 21st century regarding the 2nd Amendment. First, if you use the 'militia' as the basis for your argument you need to know what the militia is. 10 USC 311:

'(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.'

So you may be a member of the militia and now even know it. It really doesn't matter be cause Heller vs DC (2008) decided that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes. If you read the Bill of Rights the word 'people' or 'person' is used throughout. How could it possibly mean an individual in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, but a collective group controlled by the government in the 2nd Amendment? It has to mean the same thing everywhere it is used. If guns are controlled by the government then so is the press, speech, and religion.


Why six? Why not two, eight, eighteen? You need to see a guy I know shoot a six shot revolver. I have met Jerry, I do not know him, but he seemed like a nice guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw


That is going to put a crimp in shooting sports for alot of people. When I was shooting IPSC in the 1980's I knew guys shooting 1000 rds a week. That can get expensive so reloading was very popular. Now Walmart has gotten so cheap for the amount I shoot it is easier to buy it there.


In fact conflict resolution is taught as part of the concealed handgun licensing class in Texas. I think it is a good idea.




So you admit that the problem is more on the mental health side, but we should do something about the guns. None of the recommendations would have changed last Friday. All the assault weapons ban did was banned cosmentic features. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, and others. Nothing addressed the function of the gun, so compliant guns were made. Magazine capacity is not an issue when you are unopposed. Just change using mulitple mags. There is no gun show loophole. The federal laws apply to gun shows. Individuals can sell guns at gun shows or in the newspaper locally. The federal government has no authority to something that I own to keep me from selling it to a neighbor provided that neighbor is not a prohibited owner.


Interesting. The teachers would pay for their own guns and licenses as they do in Texas, but the opt out is interesting. If a parent opts his child out of an armed classroom, is the child then not under the protective umbrella of the armed teachers? Maybe isolate those children in less secure classrooms or in modules outside the main school?



Good news in Oklahoma City. The Deer Creek School district in far NW OKC and NW Oklahoma County will now be protected by armed Oklahoma County Sheriffs Deputies until further notice.


Larry has been a friend of mine for many years and I always make time for he and the wife when I am in Salt Lake City. I look forward to meeting with him in Las Vegas in January. Good stuff.

If the solution is to arm teachers, shouldn't they be teachers who possess military or police training? I think I said it upthread, but a shooter is an active target. When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit. I don't think that a teacher who's taken one gun class would be able to hit an active shooter who was possibly firing back. I've been shooting with my parents before, and have grown up around guns, but I highly doubt I would be much help in that kind of situation, even if I was armed.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

When there are children running around, a shooter running around shooting... That's not an easy target to hit.

Au contraire. Aim higher.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

I think that the problems occur when 'solutions' are suggested that would have had no affect on the shooting and/or when rights are infringed upon, and I don't just mean gun rights.

I'm going to disagree just a bit with this. The problem doesn't come when "solutions" that aren't really solutions are "suggested." The problem comes when solutions that aren't really solutions are adopted. It's a distinction that matters, I think, because the former is focused on inhibiting the discussion while the latter focuses on effective decision-making.

NPR had what I thought was a good interview with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-WV), who has a A-rating from the NRA, on Wednesday. This part particularly resonated with me:

SIEGEL: Can you go so far as to say there should be a real limit, as there used to be, on how big a magazine you can use?

MANCHIN: What I will say is I want to sit down with the people that want 10 or more rounds. I want to hear. I don't know. I want to hear their reasoning, and I think that's a conversation that we need to have, Robert, and I keep saying that.

SIEGEL: What I hear you saying is it's time to sit down and talk with people on all sides, but I don't hear you saying that you're bringing a strong belief in what could or should be banned right now into those talks.

MANCHIN: Robert, I think if we have people coming with preset notions and basically their minds made up, the wrong people are coming to the table. . . . You know, if you can't have - and I told Senator Feinstein. I said, Dianne, you've been working on this for quite some time. It's very near and dear to you, and I respect that. And I want to learn more and see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I want my friends at the NRA and all of us sitting down so you can hear what they're coming and what they see around this country.

I think he's right. If people come to the table with their minds already made up, whether about what the answers are or what the answers aren't, then the wrong people are at the table.

The Bill of Rights DOES restrict state governments. If fact it restricts any government entity even at the city level.

Not quite. The Bill of Rights itself only restricts the powers of the federal government, and courts consistently held that until the end of the 19th Century.

But starting the 1920s, courts have held the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, "incorporates" some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and imposes on state and local governments the same restrictions imposed on the federal government. It was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

So the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government. Most, but not all portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to have been incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[adpimiz]

A friend told me that he saw on the news that CT actually has a ban on assault weapons. Does anyone know if that's true?

[IrishLake]

No. Not even a shot needs to be fired in order for it to be effective.

This never made the mainstream news because Newtown happened just a few days later.

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/...he-Full-S.html

My brother is a teacher. He has signed up to get his CCW permit in our state. His wife is also a teacher, and he'd like for her to do the same. If it ever becomes legal for a teacher to carry at school in our state, my brother will do so. (He was Army ROTC and planned on being an Army lifer until a medical issue lost him his scholarship).

[adpimiz]

^ What I'm saying, though, is that if teachers are armed, they should have extensive training. Trust me, I'm very anti gun control.

[carnation]

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by carnation

The last school where I taught had several men who had been hunters for years. I would trust them with my life.

Men who have been hunting for years =/= man who has never even picked up a gun in a video game who freaks out over this shooting and decides he needs to carry a gun to his classroom.

In other words I agree with adpimiz. Like anything else, I would assume the concealed carry training "takes" better with some than with others.

[carnation]

Oh, I do too. I was just commenting about people who would be great defenders. Dang, my little brother should be one. He's a high school teacher/former Army sharpshooter/avid hunter. I hope he never has to face a crazy school shooter, though.